If the deal is based on a baseline that assumes the expiration of the Bush cuts, then Mr. Boehner’s claimed deficit reduction is hugely exaggerated (and not for the first time) because a lot of the deficit reduction is provided by the expected increase in revenues due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That is my understanding — if anyone has a different understanding, please post it, because right now this deal looks like a dog to me.
It's based on what it's in law now. It doesn't mean Hussein will not extend the tax cuts as he was under pressure to do last time.
The reason this misleading angle is being reported is that the WH is stretching the truth to try to arm-twist Dem House members to vote for the bill
“because a lot of the deficit reduction is provided by the expected increase in revenues due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That is my understanding”
I’m not picking on what you are saying, but how can we predict that the additional revenue from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will have an impact on deficit reduction? The way Washington works, that money will already have been spent or borrowed against by the time the first nickel clangs into the collection box at the IRS. Again, I’m not being cynical about your post, just wondering if you have information from the bill or elsewhere that the funds have to be used for deficit reduction.