It currently takes 60 votes to pass bipartisan appropriations but only 50 to pass a rescission that claws the money back. That asymmetry destroys the logic of bipartisan deals and helps explain why Democrats won’t provide votes for a CR they can’t trust. Reform options include eliminating the filibuster for appropriations (restoring clear accountability) or raising the bar for rescissions.
— Aligning thresholds for spending and clawbacks would stabilize budgeting and shift fights back to elections rather than procedural gamesmanship.
Tyler Cowen
2026.01.13
40% relevant
Both pieces point to how procedural rules and small technicalities in budget/legislative design reshape political outcomes. Cowen’s post documents benefit changes produced by routine administrative calculations and bipartisan statute, which like the rescission–filibuster asymmetry, alter the electoral bargaining equilibrium through institutional mechanics rather than headline policy fights.
Shawn Regan
2026.01.13
64% relevant
Less directly doctrinal but conceptually related: the article argues that administrative and permitting rules (the procedural 'mismatch' between what leaders want and what permits allow) are the key obstacle — akin to how fiscal procedural mismatches block budget deals. The connection is the same governance theme: align procedural thresholds with policy goals.
Matthew Yglesias
2025.10.01
100% relevant
“It takes 60 votes to pass appropriations legislation, but only 50 votes to pass a rescission package… Republicans have, for the first time ever, done party‑line rescissions,” alongside “unprecedented pocket rescissions.”