[thaumasiotes]

The other responses have the right idea, but in more detail:

All congressional bills receive an estimate of their budget impact over the next ten years. Whatever happens after ten years doesn't count.

The politics are that a bill should have no budget impact within that ten-year window. As an uncharitable stylized example, you'd propose to start paying random subsidies to constituents immediately in the amount of $200M / year, forever. 8 years out, you also plan to raise taxes on somebody else, someone who would never vote for you in a million years, in the amount of $1B / year, which may or may not fade out after two years. This is a bill with no budget impact.

It doesn't matter, to you, whether that spike in collections for years 9-10 actually happens or not. If you failed at targeting it exclusively to people you hate, you might prefer that it doesn't.

[rgbrgb]

ok, got it. So... this helped it pass because it allowed the headline to be "budget neutral" even though all signs point to this piece getting removed quickly and ultimately expanding the deficit. Sounds dishonest but logical if the objective is to reduce taxes without genuine consideration of the deficit. Thanks (to you and siblings) for the explanation.