PAYGO RULES: CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909
House: auto sequestration if Receipts or Appropriations legislation in deficit increase,
House Point of order waivable by unanimous consent
Senate Point of order waivable by 3/5ths vote.
May be waived under Sequestration Rules on declaration of War or
conditions of <1% real economic growth for 2qtrs."Most Budget Act waiver motions require a three-fifths vote of Senators, although most three-fifths requirements will expire in 2002."
Sequestration Process:CRS Rules 98-20006
Refer 2 USC 900-909" PAYGO rules require that an increase in direct spending or a decrease in revenues must be offset by an equal amount of spending reductions, revenue increases, or a combination of the two so that the budgetary effect of new legislation is not projected to increase the deficit, or reduce the surplus, for any fiscal year through FY2006."
Personally I would not put a whole lot effort into trying to wring out the last dollar of accuracy in the revenue neutrality argument. Time is likely to see the whole issue go away to be replaced by more overriding concerns like personal liberty and family financial privacy.
My looking into this issue has nothing to do with revenue neutrality. I ASSUME it is revenue neutral. If it is not it's either a tax cut or a tax increase in addition to reform. I want to evaluate the reform, itself. My interest is in trying to accurately reproduce the NRST calculation on 1999 data for the purpose of comparing it to the JCT distribution of tax burden data. I am close to being able to do so.