24 Comments
User's avatar
Timothy Patrick's avatar

I had to do a double-take reading this because after months of Republicans screaming about “unelected bureaucrats” (if they aren’t Elon Musk) while systematically firing inspectors general and stripping civil service protections from 50,000 federal employees (supposedly because their unelected-ness means they must be evil), suddenly seeing them show deference to MacDonough felt like stepping into an alternate reality. They’ll rail against career scientists at the FDA as illegitimate “deep state” actors, but then John Thune says firing the parliamentarian would be “akin to killing the filibuster” and multiple GOP senators are like “that’s just the process, we respect it.” Okay! I’m happy for everyone suddenly respecting processes because they are processes, but will that sentiment last when it comes to passing the bill?

Then I went digging into what right-wing media is actually saying about MacDonough and yeah, we’re definitely still in the same universe. Did you know she’s a “former Gore advisor” who is a “leech from the corpse of Harry Reid” who in an act of “animus” “took a hatchet” to “suck the life” out of the bill like a “wet blanket” because, as every one of the articles I found repeatedly mentions, she was “appointed by a Democrat” years ago? Did you know she is the swamp?

It’s just fascinating that Senate Republican leadership seems to understand they actually need some institutional guardrails to function, even while the broader party wages war on the concept of non-partisan expertise. I guess the difference is MacDonough’s rulings can be overruled if they really want to, whereas career civil servants in agencies might actually know things that contradict their policy goals, and therefore must be eradicated? Much easier to attack people who can’t fight back than to pick a fight with an institution you might need to work with later when the pendulum swings back.

Expand full comment
Gina S Meyer's avatar

Thank you, Gabe! This is exactly what I needed to know. We were debating this at our state representatives’ town hall on Monday, where I admonished everyone that the current administration does not respect guardrails, and questioned whether congress would respect the Byrd rule.

Expand full comment
Kate Stone's avatar

Seems like quite the fantasy to believe we’ll ever return to a time of compromise and working across the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation. The Senate Parliamentarian should never be the most powerful person in government. When’s the last time there was ever a win/win outcome in Congress? Seems like it’s always I win/you lose. Logic would say after an election where more people voted for someone other than Trump and with razor thin margins in the House and Senate, the legislative environment would be ripe for compromise. I would say to Logic, ha, ha, you’re kidding, right? But I know there are state legislatures where the parties work together (Minnesota comes to mind), so maybe things will change if enough of those people make it to the national level.

Expand full comment
Joe Howard's avatar

Interesting article!! Thank you! I really appreciate it and I feel like I am learning so much!

Expand full comment
Trina McNair's avatar

Senators not having to listen to what she says does not give me good feelings. Whenever it's "typically they do though", this administration seems to fly in the face of the typical.

Expand full comment
Camille's avatar

Yeah, I am extremely worried about that. This administration is openly defiant of the Supreme Court. What's to stop them from defying "norms"?

Expand full comment
Trina McNair's avatar

Exactly. It feels like too many of our checks and balances rely on the party willingly doing the right or expected thing even when they don't have to. This admin has proved they don't care about precedent.

Expand full comment
Lindsey Brown's avatar

Yes, exactly. Why do we even have checks and balances if they no one *really* has to comply? It's maddening.

Expand full comment
Amber's avatar

This is incredibly interesting! The job of the parliamentarian is one I always mean to look up but instead ends up sitting on my checklist of things to research later.

Expand full comment
Janet Stevermer's avatar

How was the Byrd Rule enacted. Did he just establish a rule that they all follow, or was it voted on by the entire body? Just curious.

Expand full comment
Mary Goldring's avatar

Somehow learning that Sen. Mike Lee’s proposal to sell off public lands is officially considered “Byrd droppings” makes me as a Utahn very pleased. I wonder what it would be called if the rule had been instituted by a senator named “Bull”. 😉

Expand full comment
Nancy's avatar

This was fascinating! I learned so much, and laughed out loud at the Byrd bath and Byrd droppings! 😂

Expand full comment
Linnea Olcott's avatar

She sounds like a remarkable person. This was fascinating and I learned a ton-thank you!

Expand full comment
Chelsey Gillen's avatar

How has the AI part not been cut out yet? Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with budget. I hope it gets cut. Hopefully the republicans will follow her advice.

Expand full comment
Tonya Motley's avatar

Wow! Wonderful to learn about her! MacDonough for president!

Expand full comment
Jenny Williams's avatar

Can you make this available to anyone so I can post it??

Expand full comment
Amber's avatar

This isn't a post for only paid subscribers. You should be able to share the link with anyone.

Expand full comment
Sarah's avatar

Is there a House equivalent? A House parliamentarian? Until reading this I had no idea this was a position. Also, how do you become Senate Parliamentarian and how long are the terms?

Expand full comment
Bonnie's avatar

Very informative article. I don't understand how all the spending in this bill and cutting taxes, which raises the deficit gets a pass.

Expand full comment
Lori Bird's avatar

Perhaps by following the advice of the parliamentarian the republican senators are hoping this gives them a way to cut odious provisions without openly defying Mr. Trump. I would prefer they find the courage of convictions but if it means that the bill is less harmful to people then it is better than nothing. (Although I expect nothing from the Senate at this point)

Expand full comment