Rep. Jason Smith, the House’s new top tax writer, is promoting an approach he says would favor working-class Americans over large corporations, a shift in tone from his predecessors that raises questions about companies’ ability to push tax cuts through Congress.

It is from the Wall Street Journal.

I understand the passage as he is promoting an approach (and) he says (that the approach) would favor ...

If so, how can 'and' and 'that the approach' be omitted? If not so, how can I disassemble the passage to simpler parts to correctly understand?

Lastly, is it a usual expression?

1 Answer 1


I think you are parsing the sentence very slightly incorrectly. It isn't exactly that he is promoting an approach, and he says the approach would favor working-class Americans; rather, he is promoting an approach that he says would favor working-class Americans.

The entire thing is kind of an example of deleting which is and that - "...an approach that he says would favor...which is a shift in tone..."


  • I guessed it and I know when I can omit a relative pronoun. In that case I could not figure out what the subject of 'would' is. 'An approach' would not be the subject because it is the object of 'promote'. Thanks. Feb 7, 2023 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .