Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I should have taken accounting. This para seems to say they did that, but then again, they didn't:
"The overall measure is technically cost-free, because it would also raise money by tightening rules against tax shelters and imposing new customs duties. But Mr. Ashdown and other critics contend that the full costs have been glossed over and disguised by delaying the starting date of some provisions and scheduling others to end after several years. Once Congress passes a tax break, lawmakers typically extend it when it comes up for renewal."
Is this NYT spin, or is the funding truly illusory?
|
Do you remember how they kept the cost of the 2001 tax cuts lower by making some of them phased in over several years, and others were supposed to phase out? Recent legislation (that passed both houses and was signed by the president on a campaign stop in a swing state -- I believe you referred to him having signed legislation recently -- it was probably this, which was signed I think Tuesday but perhaps Monday) extended most of the tax cuts that were supposed to be going away. So, whatever revenue the phase-out of the cuts was supposed to raise is not being raised. I'm sure Congressional members are promising their affected constituencies that there is no way the cuts will get phased out when the time comes.
Even die-hard pro-business Republican tax lawyers I know think this bill is comprised almost completely of pork shit.
