This week the House of Representatives is likely to overwhelmingly pass a bill that would ensure that at least 27 million married couples retain the tax break granted to them by the president's tax-cut legislation in 2001 by extending the relief permanently from the so-called ''marriage penalty'' that used to exist in the tax code and forced some couples to pay more in taxes when married than they would have paid if single.
Extending the 2001 tax provisions is a top priority of the Bush administration and Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, also supports marriage penalty relief.

Now, here's the bad news . . . the bill will cost the Treasury more than $96 billion over 10 years. It's going to take some fiscal conservatives a lot of effort to keep spending in line in the future.

Heck, its worse than that: Its gonna cost $192 Bn over 20 years! And over 40 years, $384 Bn! Jayzus!

Why do they do that, extend costs over some time interval? Why not just say its gonna, "Cost $9.6 Bn per year"? I can add.

B

I believe the problem is that the CBO cannot "resonably" calculate the figures past a certain point, in that their assumptions get less reliable than their usually unreliable assumptions.

Why is it that tax cuts are always represented as "costing" the treasury. It is NOT money flowing out of the treasury; it will be money they do not recieve. The only way tax cuts can be viewed as as "cost" is if all money is the government's. That is a socialist mentality; not a free enterprise/capitalist thought.
My money belongs to me!
If we were required to actually pay taxes every month, or quarter this nonsense would stop.

Precisely. However, that IS what the democrats want you to think, that all of the money IS theirs, and they are simply "nice" enough to let you use it.

Philosophy is one thing, fiscal economics is another. Personally, I'm not against the removal of the "marriage penalty" but I am against reductions in revenue without clear plans for reductions in spending by the very same Congress and administration. To not do both will mean that 1) deficit spending increases or 2) other citizens end up paying higher "taxes" in the form of user fees or tarrifs.

Starvation is an effective diet.

OK, how come we have to figure out from when the money comes to "pay" for a tax cut, but no one ever asks the TAXPAYER if he can afford a tax increase? And don't tell me that government just supplies what "we" want and so we must pay for it. Government increases; it is the nature of every organism. The way to stop its growth is to cut off, or reduce its "food" . I, personally do not want any new government services, and you could remove a bunch that already exist.
The Constitution requires the federal government to defend the borders, ( which it doesn't do) and deliver the mail- (which it does OK, but not as well as private enterprise does, i.e. UPS FedEx, etc.) Everything else is pork!

The government is forbidden to do some things yet those are precisely what it wants to do. ( Limit free speech, gun ownership, etc.) What part of " Congress shall make no law..." do they NOT understand?

end of rant