House Republicans planning to ignore CBO numbers

crowny2 - 2011-01-06 11:43 AM

And replace them with their own.

House Republicans to Weaken Anti-Deficit Rules to Ease Tax Cut Approvals

"This flies in the face of a House Republican pledge to provide fiscal discipline,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. “Whether we like it or not, the CBO is the referee on the field,” and “the approach they are taking is when you don’t like the ruling of the referee, you throw him off the field.”

I find this troubling and worrying.  Even in the past, when both sides didn't agree, they at least left the CBO alone. 

crowny2 - 2011-01-06 10:43 AM

And replace them with their own.

House Republicans to Weaken Anti-Deficit Rules to Ease Tax Cut Approvals

"This flies in the face of a House Republican pledge to provide fiscal discipline,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. “Whether we like it or not, the CBO is the referee on the field,” and “the approach they are taking is when you don’t like the ruling of the referee, you throw him off the field.”

I find this troubling and worrying.  Even in the past, when both sides didn't agree, they at least left the CBO alone. 

scoobysdad - 2011-01-06 10:53 AMThe CBO may attempt to be non-partisan. But that doesn't mean the reports and projections it produces are accurate or non-politicized.

mr2tony - 2011-01-06 12:25 PM I'm going to make a bold prediction: The deficit will rise in the next 10 years. I know. Going out on a limb aren't I?

trinnas - 2011-01-06 9:49 AM
No they have never left the CBO alone they have always played the game of working arond the CBO to get the numbers they want such as counting 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of outlay to get the OC numbers to work for them.

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 1:03 PM

That's a great talking point, but in fact wrong.  Their analysis (see the 4th slide here) does actually use 10 years.  But even if they did compare 10 years of revenue to 6 years of outlay, by that logic analyzing a parents saving for college (18 years of revenue vs 4 years of outlay) would make no sense either.

I'm not saying the CBO is totally immune to being polticized, but overall I think they do an extremely good job of being non-partisan.  I'm sure if they had come out and said the healthcare bill will crater the budget the Repubs would be treating it as holy scripture.  The CBO even states though that while their estimates for 10 years out show a reduction to the deficit, in the long run the associated costs might not be sustainable.  But I guess the reform proponents made them put that in there, so in reality since the CBO is so twisted that really means it IS sustainable?

Whether the estimate is exactly right on or wildly off, both sides have agreed to use the CBO as the arbitor of the costs of legislation - to me the main point is how quickly the republicans were to do to the dems what they complained about when they were out of power - for example, make exemptions to their own rules for things they disagree with, refuse to allow the other party to add amendments....  To me, the big story is the more things change, the more they stay the same...

to me the main point is how quickly the republicans were to do to the dems what they complained about when they were out of power

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 12:03 PM

That's a great talking point, but in fact wrong.  Their analysis (see the 4th slide here) does actually use 10 years.  But even if they did compare 10 years of revenue to 6 years of outlay, by that logic analyzing a parents saving for college (18 years of revenue vs 4 years of outlay) would make no sense either.

I'm not saying the CBO is totally immune to being polticized, but overall I think they do an extremely good job of being non-partisan.  I'm sure if they had come out and said the healthcare bill will crater the budget the Repubs would be treating it as holy scripture.  The CBO even states though that while their estimates for 10 years out show a reduction to the deficit, in the long run the associated costs might not be sustainable.  But I guess the reform proponents made them put that in there, so in reality since the CBO is so twisted that really means it IS sustainable?

Whether the estimate is exactly right on or wildly off, both sides have agreed to use the CBO as the arbitor of the costs of legislation - to me the main point is how quickly the republicans were to do to the dems what they complained about when they were out of power - for example, make exemptions to their own rules for things they disagree with, refuse to allow the other party to add amendments....  To me, the big story is the more things change, the more they stay the same...

crowny2 - 2011-01-06 1:41 PM

This is what I tried to say and did NOT do a good job of saying.

trinnas - 2011-01-06 11:22 AM
I do believe the idea is they start collecting before they start paying not that numbers were ignored.

The CBO scores on the basis of what they are given whether what they are given is realistic or not eg the Medicare/Medicaid paynment reductions that were never going to materialize.  Congress was talking about the Dr. fix befor the ink was dry.  This is the fashion the game is played in the CBO does an excellent job aw what they are tasked with doing whether that resembles reality or no.

And it took the Dems just as long to start whining about it color me surprised.

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 1:56 PM

CBO scores the legislation though, not some made up numbers they are given just to make the bill look good.  Sure legislation has a lot of uncertainty which makes it hard to estimate the costs (and the CBO plainly states this), not to mention all the 'fixes' that are sure to come.  

But whether it bears resemblance to reality or no, these are the numbers congress agreed to use when assessing legislation (which is why an exception has to be inserted into the repeal legislation).  So to hear the repubs come in and proclaim a brand new era where everything will be paid for and then in their first order of business is to break their own rules and say 'except for this once because we're going to use our own numbers' is amusing.  Like their election pledge to cut $100b from the budget this year that now they're saying, 'well we didn't really mean this year'.  It's the same thing Obama ran into when he was elected - there is a huge chasm between telling people what they want to hear while on the election trail and the reality of governing.

And FWIW, I'm sure when the dems next regain power they'll do all the things to the repubs that they are complaining the repubs are doing to them now.  It's a never ending cycle of 'they-did-it-first".  Which is appropriate since the level of debate in Washington these days is about at the kindergarten level (which is being generous).

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 12:56 PM Sure legislation has a lot of uncertainty which makes it hard to estimate the costs (and the CBO plainly states this), not to mention all the 'fixes' that are sure to come.  

VeganMan - 2011-01-06 12:12 PM

Which is a good reason to not pass legislation at all in most cases, because government interference with the free market in a free society is usually in the flavor of doing more harm than good.

trinnas - 2011-01-06 12:11 PM

I am sorry but it is disingenuous for either side to hold up the shiny white cross of CBO martydom when they both have played the game.

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 1:25 PM  Nothing has changed, it's business as usual.

drewb8 - 2011-01-06 2:25 PM

I think it's irrelevent what the CBO number is.  The bottom line is that congress agreed to use CBO as the arbitor of the costs fo legislation.  If the repubs felt that CBO would be unfairly influenced by the other side than they shouldn't have made that agreement.  But they did, so to loudly make a rule saying 'all legislation has to be paid for' and then say 'except for this once because we don't agree with the rules we agreed to' makes me laugh.  Nothing has changed, it's business as usual.

trinnas - 2011-01-06 12:33 PM

So you mean like Dems and Pay-go.

ashort33 - 2011-01-06 3:12 PM

I didn't see where anyone answered CBarnes' question.  In my mind, the CBO is irrelevant - they make projections, but there are way too many variables to come close to the right answer - the biggest uncontrollable variable being actions of future congresses - at the end of the day they come no closer to being correct than those climate models.

I think it is pretty simple - we know how much taxes we took in last year - don't spend more than that...