Since Republicans set aside their dream of nuking Obamacare and instead set their sights on tax cuts, Senator Bob Corker has repeatedly claimed he won’t support a bill that adds to the deficit. Last month, he told reporters he would not vote for legislation unless it “reduces deficits and does not add to deficits with reasonable and responsible growth models.” Just two weeks ago, he insisted, “If I believe it’s going to add to the deficit, I’m not going to vote for it.” Yesterday, when asked if he might vote “no” in the Senate’s committee hearing, a necessary step toward passing a bill through reconciliation, he said, “Very possible. Yeah. Sure.” This morning, he informed CNBC that he would remain a firm “no” unless his colleagues agreed to some sort of “backstop or trigger,” should the tax bill fail to produce enough growth to offset its cost.

Yet hours later, Corker managed to overlook his trepidation, voting in favor of the bill in committee despite the fact that it still lacks a “dynamic“ score from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which would determine whether the cuts would add to the deficit. Moments before the vote, Corker claimed that he had been “able to work out something that is fairly satisfying to me just a few minutes ago . . . It’s a trigger to kick in additional revenues should we not hit the targets.”

Target-hitting aside—virtually every outside analyst expects the J.C.T. score to show that the Senate bill doesn’t come close to creating enough economic growth to “pay for itself,” as Republicans have claimed—Corker’s “fairly satisfying” solution is still just a theoretical idea. As CNBC’s John Harwood writes, “It’s unclear whether and how such a trigger would work.” Underscoring the absolute clusterfuckery of the situation, Ted Cruz has chimed in to say he wants a trigger too, but his would do the opposite of Corker’s.

Moreover, should Corker’s fantasy plan actually come to pass, the Tennessee senator can’t say who will be left holding the bag should it fail to sufficiently stoke the economy: