The New Republican Congress

[Junior]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/congresss-first-act-was-to-declare-war-on-math.html

 

 

The first substantive act of the new, all-Republican Congress was a telling one: House and Senate leaders, now in partisan accord and able to impose an undiluted partisan imprint upon the institution, struck a blow in their decades-long struggle on behalf of low taxes for the rich and against the bookkeeping standards that have stood in their way. In a rapid vote yesterday, the House directed the Congressional Budget Office to use “dynamic scoring” — a Washington term of art to describe imposing conservative ideology upon the once-neutral task of measuring the budgetary impact of legislation.

 

The Congressional Budget Office is a 40-year-old institution that has acquired enormous clout within Washington by virtue of its reputation for ideological neutrality. It furnishes Congress and the public with budgetary estimates that, if necessarily imperfect (as all predictions must be), are arrived at fairly. It is also a perfect modern expression of an old Progressive Era–ideal: that policymakers should be informed by the work of impartial experts. That the conservative majority has set out to corrupt this institution as one of its first major acts is, therefore, perfectly fitting.

.....

 

The whole reason the Republican Congress is instituting dynamic scoring comes as a response to its attempt to write a tax reform bill last year. The idea was to lower tax rates while eliminating loopholes and preferences. But Republicans discovered that, while lowering rates is easy, eliminating preferences is hard. After Representative Dave Camp produced a tax reform bill that failed to cut tax rates for high-income taxpayers enough for their liking, Republicans abandoned it en masse. Paul Ryan openly declared his plan to change the forecasting rules so that Republicans could cut tax rates without having to pay for every dollar by ending preferences. The first step was kicking out Douglas Elmendorf, the CBO director widely respected by both sides. The second step was yesterday’s vote.

 

“Dynamic scoring” allows the Republican majority to impose its own ideological terms on the process of scoring legislation. Many credible economic forecasters would argue that debt-financed tax cuts actually reduce economic growth, and thereby cost the government more, not less, than their static cost. (For instance, a paper by the Brookings Institutionconcludes that the Bush tax cuts slightly reduced economic growth, because the negative impact of higher debt outweighed the positive incentive impact of lower rates.)

 

The new, “dynamic” CBO will be systematically biased to make conservative proposals appear misleadingly cheap and liberal proposals misleadingly costly to the public fisc. This would be true even if the Republicans were soliciting a fair range of forecasting perspectives. By its design, the dynamic scoring rule allows the party in power to game its effects. It applies “dynamic scoring” only to legislation affecting 0.25 percent of Gross Domestic Product. As Chye-Ching Huang and Paul Van de Water point out, congressional leaders can manipulate this requirement easily: They can break up large pieces of legislation into smaller bills to avoid dynamic scoring, or combine smaller pieces into a major bill, if needed to make their agenda appear more affordable. Dynamic scoring is subject to abuse by its very design.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I was going to post the article last night but figured Carl would have gotten to it.

[BigRedBuster]

Why doesn't the CBO do both? Economic affects from legislation are a real thing. The problem is, estimating what the affects are. The entire budget projection is one big crap shoot so why not put out one projection with out economic affects and one with (their best guess) economic affects and so everyone can see what potentially might happen.

 

Now, if the CBO (being as bipartisan as possible) believes tax cuts hurts the deficit and economy, then show it. If the CBO (being as bipartisan as possible) believes the tax cuts will help the deficit and the economy, then show it.

 

As I'm sure the CBO tries it's best to do, base both projections on the best information possible.

 

All I know is tax increases and tax cuts affect the economy some how. They actually have affected the economy differently depending on what era of history you are talking about and what else is going on in the world. So, I find it ridiculous to make tax decisions with no regard to what it does do to the deficit or the economy.

[TGHusker]

This is the kind of crap that I hate. Just keep it honest guys, regardless of party, and let your policies stand on their own 2 feet and justify them honestly.

[BigRedBuster]

This is the kind of crap that I hate. Just keep it honest guys, regardless of party, and let your policies stand on their own 2 feet and justify them honestly.

Well, pardon me for actually defending something that I wish wasn't political.

It is an extremely complicated issue.

 

The way I understand it from the short little bit I have read today on this there are two ways of doing it:

 

A) The current way - which takes proposed legislation and projects what will happen going forward basically in a vacuum. This doesn't take into account affects the legislation has on the greater economy and how that affects tax income...etc.

 

B) Dynamic Scoring - This tries to take into account how legislation affects the bigger picture and in turn, how it affects the budget and tax income.

 

Well.....to me, (A) is much more clean cut and relatively easier to do. There are fewer variables. But, as we all know, legislation DOES affect the greater economy, tax revenue and the budget. So, in essence, what the CBO is putting out now, we all know is technically not what is going to happen.

 

(B) on the other hand, is very difficult to do and certain legislation done at one point in time may have a different reaction in the economy than it would at a different time. It is much more (as the name implies) dynamic.

 

So, to me, neither is perfect and if I were a manager trying to make a decision, I would want to see both projections.

[knapplc]

But wait - there's more! This congress is going to give and give and give. Just not to John Q. Public...

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One


With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

CBPP's Kathy Ruffing wrote that, if a transfer was made before the 2016 deadline, both funds would be solvent until 2033.

The Republican angle in preventing that move then seems obvious.

"By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

 

[Junior]

 

But wait - there's more! This congress is going to give and give and give. Just not to John Q. Public...

 

 

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One

 

 

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

 

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

 

CBPP's Kathy Ruffing wrote that, if a transfer was made before the 2016 deadline, both funds would be solvent until 2033.

 

The Republican angle in preventing that move then seems obvious.

 

"By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

 

 

 

In some ways, you have to bow to their superior bastardry. They are very clever with the ways in which they will f#*k everyone over.

[strigori]

 

 

But wait - there's more! This congress is going to give and give and give. Just not to John Q. Public...

 

 

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One

 

 

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

 

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

 

CBPP's Kathy Ruffing wrote that, if a transfer was made before the 2016 deadline, both funds would be solvent until 2033.

 

The Republican angle in preventing that move then seems obvious.

 

"By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

 

 

 

In some ways, you have to bow to their superior bastardry. They are very clever with the ways in which they will f#*k everyone over.

 

Yet somehow tightly clench a Bible that preaches the opposite of everything they do. Its really to get to where its hard to tell where one could start with satire.

[carlfense]

 

This is the kind of crap that I hate. Just keep it honest guys, regardless of party, and let your policies stand on their own 2 feet and justify them honestly.

Well, pardon me for actually defending something that I wish wasn't political.

It is an extremely complicated issue.

 

The way I understand it from the short little bit I have read today on this there are two ways of doing it:

 

A) The current way - which takes proposed legislation and projects what will happen going forward basically in a vacuum. This doesn't take into account affects the legislation has on the greater economy and how that affects tax income...etc.

 

B) Dynamic Scoring - This tries to take into account how legislation affects the bigger picture and in turn, how it affects the budget and tax income.

 

Well.....to me, (A) is much more clean cut and relatively easier to do. There are fewer variables. But, as we all know, legislation DOES affect the greater economy, tax revenue and the budget. So, in essence, what the CBO is putting out now, we all know is technically not what is going to happen.

 

(B) on the other hand, is very difficult to do and certain legislation done at one point in time may have a different reaction in the economy than it would at a different time. It is much more (as the name implies) dynamic.

 

So, to me, neither is perfect and if I were a manager trying to make a decision, I would want to see both projections.

 

I'll agree that both are flawed but option B seems to be a lot more susceptible to juking the stats.

 

I'll put a marker out there: if our CBO scorekeeper is forced to adopt partisan voodoo economics the Republican congress is going to focus primarily on fiscal policy that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans. (Just kidding. That's what they're going to do regardless . . . but I suspect that they'll try to cloak it in their feigned interest in fiscal responsibility.)

[tschu]

Using crippling Social Security as leverage? They have absolutely zero shame.

[tschu]

Yet there's a faction of the GOP voter base out there fist-pumping at the testicles that it takes to attempt the moves Junior and knapp posted. "Hell yeah, I want my party to have GIANT BALLS swinging around when they're f'ing me in the ass"

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of crap that I hate. Just keep it honest guys, regardless of party, and let your policies stand on their own 2 feet and justify them honestly.

Well, pardon me for actually defending something that I wish wasn't political.

It is an extremely complicated issue.

 

The way I understand it from the short little bit I have read today on this there are two ways of doing it:

 

A) The current way - which takes proposed legislation and projects what will happen going forward basically in a vacuum. This doesn't take into account affects the legislation has on the greater economy and how that affects tax income...etc.

 

B) Dynamic Scoring - This tries to take into account how legislation affects the bigger picture and in turn, how it affects the budget and tax income.

 

Well.....to me, (A) is much more clean cut and relatively easier to do. There are fewer variables. But, as we all know, legislation DOES affect the greater economy, tax revenue and the budget. So, in essence, what the CBO is putting out now, we all know is technically not what is going to happen.

 

(B) on the other hand, is very difficult to do and certain legislation done at one point in time may have a different reaction in the economy than it would at a different time. It is much more (as the name implies) dynamic.

 

So, to me, neither is perfect and if I were a manager trying to make a decision, I would want to see both projections.

I'll agree that both are flawed but option B seems to be a lot more susceptible to juking the stats.

 

I'll put a marker out there: if our CBO scorekeeper is forced to adopt partisan voodoo economics the Republican congress is going to focus primarily on fiscal policy that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans. (Just kidding. That's what they're going to do regardless . . . but I suspect that they'll try to cloak it in their feigned interest in fiscal responsibility.)

That's why I would want to see both.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Yet there's a faction of the GOP voter base out there fist-pumping at the testicles that it takes to attempt the moves Junior and knapp posted. "Hell yeah, I want my party to have GIANT BALLS swinging around when they're f'ing me in the ass"

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Using crippling Social Security as leverage? They have absolutely zero shame.

 

 

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund -- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

 

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't mind the rule had the democrats used it to raise revenues for social security.

[strigori]

 

Using crippling Social Security as leverage? They have absolutely zero shame.

 

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund -- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

 

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't mind the rule had the democrats used it to raise revenues for social security.

 

Demographics are your friend. The Baby Boomer generation has thrown the population pyramid out of whack, with way the hell too many old people still alive at the same time, without the larger numbers of youth under them, meaning either revenue must increase to cover the cost, or brutally chopping benefits are the only two options. Which tends to be either the millionaires and billionaires can pay more in taxes (money they will never practically notice as it really only exists on a spread sheet to them anyway) or just say F the old people. Interesting that the Bible thumping party is also the party of F the old people, seems like there might be a commandment or something in there that they like to hang on walls in there....