Isn't that a big part of the issues the US has with passing a budget? Some of their tax breaks etc. have expiry dates so keep needing to be renewed. I think part of the current shutdown is related to the debate about renewing the obamacare tax breaks which have/are due to expire
So they do the thing where they set breaks to sunset in order to make the bill revenue neutral according to the CBO.
Then, later on, when the tax breaks are ready to sunset, they convince the CBO that the tax breaks constitute the new baseline. So now when they pass the next budget they are not considered "new" and they do NOT need to be balanced with cuts or increases any more.
It's a total end run around the intention of the process.
very true, although in relation to OPs point I was talking less about the why of expiring laws/taxes and just pointing out that creating laws that expire can have its own less than desirable knock on effects
To over simplify the process: Budgets in the US are supposed to be revenue neutral. The use of sunset provisions, like the SALT cap, allow Congress to play with the math in order to make it follow its own rules. These provisions are really a gimmick because not extending them before expiration becomes a political problem. I.e. letting the SALT cap expire would “give the rich a tax break”. Note: I’m not arguing the validity of the SALT cap).
> Budgets in the US are supposed to be revenue neutral.
To clarify - budgets passed via the reconciliation are supposed to be revenue neutral. The reconciliation process takes away the Senate's filibuster. When the filibuster is in play, it effectively requires a 60-40 supermajority to pass anything.
(No this is not how the founders imagined the process going when they wrote the rules.)
