[pessimizer]

> The programs for spending the money are slated to last as little as a single year

What does this mean? Are you saying that there exists a program in this package that will take less than a year, or are you saying that all of the programs in this package could be wrapped up within a single year? If the latter, fine. If the former, you're using careful phrasing to be intentionally deceptive, which is not a way to argue with people you're trying to convince.

[sokoloff]

If there are 10 programs that will all be paid for by 10 years of tax increases and one program’s spending happens all in a year and the others across a range of times, none longer than 10 years, that line of argument is convincing to me that there is short-term spending in excess of taxation married to pay for it, even if no programs overrun their budget or get extended without new taxes to cover the extension.

[lost953]

Yes, the former. For instance, the Expanded Child Tax Credit, is extended for 1 year at a estimated cost of $190M if this were expanded to the 10 years the bill is supposed to be payed for, it would be larger than the entire bill is supposed to be.