Figures don't lie, and the figures in the budget do the following, though you are "figuring" they don't by making the striking point that nobody actually "waved their hands." Let's remove metaphors:
Those who created it built in the assumption, for whatever purposes, when they created the budget resolution, that the whole tax cut will expire at the end of 2010. (All the revenue that will actually be lost in the last year of the 10-year period — hundreds of billions of dollars — disappears from the accounting in that way, naturally.)
Klugman believes that there is no proposal that the tax bill be a temporary measure to expire after NINE years.
Do any of the links you have provided as, apparently, refutation, refute anything above?
Do any of them mention Year Ten?
Expiration after nine years?
Do any of the links you have provided address why Year Ten disappeared?
I mean, it wasn't by hand-waving. You and I certainly agree on that. It was a conscious decision by those who presented the package, we can safely assume.
Do paste any information you have that might indicate that the economist Klugman was in error in thinking that the accounting omitted the revenues that will be lost in Year Ten, though not those from Year Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, or One.
Or any information that the tax bill is considered a temporary measure to expire after Year Nine?
<<<Budgets of this nature are projections, not written in stone like some home based business spread sheet. And to believe otherwise is folly.>>>
I'm just asking what happened to the projection for Year Ten. Any idea?
Do you care?
No?
How con-veeeeeen-ient.
I would appreciate very much your pasting any section from any one of those links that addresses the question of whether or not the proposal assumes the fiction that the tax bill is temporary and will expire after nine years. That would be great. Thanks. |
