Politico reports great news for America’s public schools. The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, removed the private school voucher part of Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill,” because it runs afoul of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule prevents the inclusion of extraneous issues that are not directly related to fiscal issues. She also ruled that the Senate’s effort to protect religious colleges from an onerous tax on their endowment had to be removed from the bill. Here is the official history and definition of the Byrd Rule, which applies only in the Senate.
Juan Perez Jr. writes:
A Republican proposal to enact a multibillion-dollar private school tax credit program would be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it is included in conservatives’ domestic policy megabill, the Senate parliamentarian advised early Friday in a significant challenge to what would be a sweeping federal school choice program.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough also determined that an effort to carve religious schools — including Hillsdale College in Michigan — out of a planned expansion of the federal college endowment tax does not meet the Senate Byrd rule’s criteria for the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process, according to Senate Budget Democrats.
Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee had proposed a permanent, $4 billion annual tax credit for individuals who donate to organizations that support educational expenses including private-school tuition, which was projected to cost $26.046 billion between 2025 and 2034, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The tax credit scholarship plan, which is based on the Educational Choice for Children Act, would allow scholarships to students whose families make up to 300 percent of the area median gross income.
The committee also aimed to soften the blow of expanded taxes on private college and university endowments compared to a House-passed tax bill, though many qualifying private schools would still be in line to pay a tax rate of up to 8 percent of their net annual investment income.
It’s not yet clear if Republicans would try to rework some of the tax provisions that MacDonough found violated the Byrd rule, effectively blocking their inclusion in a GOP-only reconciliation measure. Republicans have successfully tweaked other proposals to the parliamentarian’s liking, but her rulings this week certainly helped upend GOP senators’ efforts to bring their fiscal package up for a vote.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Byrd Rule DOES NOT “PREVENT” extraneous items from being included in a reconciliation budget bill. The Byrd Rule only ALLOWS — IT DOESN’T REQUIRE — that items deemed not to have a direct budgetary consequence can be removed from a bill.
HERE’S WHAT HAPPENS if a Democrat challenges something in the BBB from being there:
First, the Senate Parliamentarian is asked for an opinion, then the Senate’s Presiding Officer (Thune) makes a ruling that to either follow or ignore the Parliamentarian’s advice. So far, Thune has said he will follow the parliamentarian’s decision…so far.
The full Senate can then decide whether or not to follow the Presiding Officer’s ruling. It’s not clear yet if the majority of Senators will go along with Thune’s decision…or that Thune will stick to his guns on his decision.
Thune’s decision to adhere to the parliamentarian’s opinion to delete items from the BBB can be overridden by a Senate vote.
And the Senate can vote to oust the parliamentarian at any time. Them that writes the rules can erase the rules…just like since the entire federal district court system was created by Congress, not by the Constitution, Congress can eliminate the entire federal court system and end the challenges to Trump’s agenda.
It’s clear that Senate Democrats and most media don’t understand how the Byrd Rule works (let alone the precarious situation of the entire federal district court system).
We are not out of the woods yet on the items that the parliamentarian has said should not be in the BBB.
I will be surprised if items that are near and dear to the behind-the-scenes power brokers — like the invocation of Judiciary Rule 65(c) — are not the focus of a reinstatement effort.
LikeLike
Quikwrit,
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike