Discussion:
CBO delivers surprisingly good news to Democrats on Build Back Better (WP)
(too old to reply)
VegasJerry
2021-11-19 01:29:08 UTC
Permalink
The Washington Post

CBO delivers surprisingly good news to Democrats on Build Back Better

It’s the Washington equivalent of a new Beyoncé album dropping: The Congressional
Budget Office just released its “score” of the latest version of the Build Back Better
bill. The House hopes to pass the bill Thursday night, and centrist Democrats may have
been waiting to hear a bad deficit score to cut back or kill the bill.

But it turned out that the CBO score looks quite good for the BBB. It found that the bill
will increase the deficit, but within a margin that should permit an important principle to
kick in: While we should take the CBO’s analysis into account, we should also remember
that there’s always a good bit of uncertainty in its projections.

Let’s first review what CBO found. Taking into account the various provisions, the CBO
estimated that in total, the BBB would increase the deficit by $367 billion over 10 years.

On one key question — how much money will be raised by providing $80 billion to increase
IRS enforcement on rich tax cheats — the CBO said it would raise $207 billion over 10
years, meaning the net savings would be $127 billion.

But while the $207 billion in savings wasn’t included in CBO’s top-line numbers, the $80
billion in enforcement was. Subtract that $207 billion, and it means the CBO thinks this
bill will raise the deficit by only $160 billion.

That’s $16 billion a year. In the scope of the federal budget, that’s a tiny amount.

On top of this, many people think CBO’s figure on the cost savings from tax enforcement
is a drastic underestimate. The Treasury Department estimates that it would generate
$400 billion in revenue, for a net savings of $320 billion, almost $200 billion more than
CBO thinks. If Treasury is right, the bill’s effect on the deficit is almost nothing.

The core dispute is over whether, in the face of IRS enforcement, wealthy tax cheats
would find new ways to avoid taxes (as the CBO believes), or whether more would actually
pay up. Treasury believes the latter, projecting new revenue will come directly (from people
forced to pay what they otherwise wouldn’t), and indirectly (as enforcement convinces rich
scofflaws to stay on the straight and narrow).

Giving BBB a big boost, former treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who has been
critical of the Biden administration, argues that the more optimistic scenario is correct,
noting that the way CBO calculates gains from enforcement “is conservative to the point
of implausibility.”

Summers says that even Treasury’s $320 billion estimate is too small. He thinks the revenue
gain could be twice as large, and others think it will be even higher.

Who’s right? We can’t know for sure, which points to the reason it’s foolish to act as though
the CBO’s predictions are necessarily the correct ones. There’s a lot of guesswork involved.
And like anyone else, CBO brings its own assumptions to its projections, assumptions which
themselves may be right or wrong.

Which is a good reason to take its predictions as useful information but not gospel — and not
let those predictions be the deciding factor in whether a bill should or shouldn’t become law.

Here’s the good news: All the Democrats in the House, even the moderates who have expressed
deficit fears, seem to realize that. They’ve had a reasonable debate with the CBO over its
assumptions, but after the score was released, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced
a vote on the bill for Thursday night. Pelosi wouldn’t schedule that vote unless she felt sure the
bill would pass.

So overall, while we can’t be certain what will happen, this seems like more good news. Democrats
held a long argument over the revenue and deficit side, and that seems to have been resolved.
They held a long argument over the bill’s provisions, and while a lot was left on the cutting room
floor, the story now is what the bill contains.

The climate provisions, the effort to cut the price of prescription drugs, the expansion of access
to health care on multiple fronts, the move toward universal pre-K, the child tax credit, which
has already slashed child poverty — are they important? Will they make a difference in people’s
lives and our future? If these things are worth doing — and they are — even if the revenue falls
a bit short, it will still have been the right choice. That’s what matters in the end.

So this bill will likely pass the House. Once it does, the bill will go to the Senate. Where everything
depends on a certain senator from West Virginia.
________________________________________
VegasJerry
2021-11-19 17:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by VegasJerry
The Washington Post
CBO delivers surprisingly good news to Democrats on Build Back Better
It’s the Washington equivalent of a new Beyoncé album dropping: The Congressional
Budget Office just released its “score” of the latest version of the Build Back Better
bill. The House hopes to pass the bill Thursday night, and centrist Democrats may have
been waiting to hear a bad deficit score to cut back or kill the bill.
But it turned out that the CBO score looks quite good for the BBB. It found that the bill
will increase the deficit, but within a margin that should permit an important principle to
kick in: While we should take the CBO’s analysis into account, we should also remember
that there’s always a good bit of uncertainty in its projections.
Let’s first review what CBO found. Taking into account the various provisions, the CBO
estimated that in total, the BBB would increase the deficit by $367 billion over 10 years.
On one key question — how much money will be raised by providing $80 billion to increase
IRS enforcement on rich tax cheats — the CBO said it would raise $207 billion over 10
years, meaning the net savings would be $127 billion.
But while the $207 billion in savings wasn’t included in CBO’s top-line numbers, the $80
billion in enforcement was. Subtract that $207 billion, and it means the CBO thinks this
bill will raise the deficit by only $160 billion.
That’s $16 billion a year. In the scope of the federal budget, that’s a tiny amount.
On top of this, many people think CBO’s figure on the cost savings from tax enforcement
is a drastic underestimate. The Treasury Department estimates that it would generate
$400 billion in revenue, for a net savings of $320 billion, almost $200 billion more than
CBO thinks. If Treasury is right, the bill’s effect on the deficit is almost nothing.
The core dispute is over whether, in the face of IRS enforcement, wealthy tax cheats
would find new ways to avoid taxes (as the CBO believes), or whether more would actually
pay up. Treasury believes the latter, projecting new revenue will come directly (from people
forced to pay what they otherwise wouldn’t), and indirectly (as enforcement convinces rich
scofflaws to stay on the straight and narrow).
Giving BBB a big boost, former treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers, who has been
critical of the Biden administration, argues that the more optimistic scenario is correct,
noting that the way CBO calculates gains from enforcement “is conservative to the point
of implausibility.”
Summers says that even Treasury’s $320 billion estimate is too small. He thinks the revenue
gain could be twice as large, and others think it will be even higher.
Who’s right? We can’t know for sure, which points to the reason it’s foolish to act as though
the CBO’s predictions are necessarily the correct ones. There’s a lot of guesswork involved.
And like anyone else, CBO brings its own assumptions to its projections, assumptions which
themselves may be right or wrong.
Which is a good reason to take its predictions as useful information but not gospel — and not
let those predictions be the deciding factor in whether a bill should or shouldn’t become law.
Here’s the good news: All the Democrats in the House, even the moderates who have expressed
deficit fears, seem to realize that. They’ve had a reasonable debate with the CBO over its
assumptions, but after the score was released, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced
a vote on the bill for Thursday night. Pelosi wouldn’t schedule that vote unless she felt sure the
bill would pass.
So overall, while we can’t be certain what will happen, this seems like more good news. Democrats
held a long argument over the revenue and deficit side, and that seems to have been resolved.
They held a long argument over the bill’s provisions, and while a lot was left on the cutting room
floor, the story now is what the bill contains.
The climate provisions, the effort to cut the price of prescription drugs, the expansion of access
to health care on multiple fronts, the move toward universal pre-K, the child tax credit, which
has already slashed child poverty — are they important? Will they make a difference in people’s
lives and our future? If these things are worth doing — and they are — even if the revenue falls
a bit short, it will still have been the right choice. That’s what matters in the end.
So this bill will likely pass the House. Once it does, the bill will go to the Senate. Where everything
depends on a certain senator from West Virginia.
________________________________________
People will still vote for Trump regardless because he talks like any
asshole you might meet in a bar, not some hoity-toity politician.
Yea, but as you see here, nobody can explain why they vote Republican, even when
you ask them individual questions....:

Do you want to lose your family’s healthcare for preexisting conditions?
Do you want infrastructure (roads, bridges) fixed? (Jobs)
Do you want your lower drug costs and letting Medicare negotiate prices with Big Pharma?
Do you want dental, hearing and vision added to your Medicare?
Do you want childcare tax credits?
Do you want universal Pre-K?
Do you want better Immigration Control?
Do you want the rich to continue paying no taxes?
Do you want big corporations paying no taxes?
Do you want to save the environment?
Do you want better healthcare?
Do you want your state officials to be able to cancel your vote?
risky biz
2021-11-20 22:36:19 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:53:42 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

~ People will still vote for Trump regardless because he talks like any
asshole you might meet in a bar, not some hoity-toity politician.
Let me get this straight. Are you describing Democrats as 'hoity-toity politicians'? This could be a first. Is the dam starting to leak?
Loading...