Jim Roye
Jim Roye
Jul 22, 2017 · 2 min read

One of the problems we have with the CBO is that they NEVER look at alternative possibilities of of legislation in a larger sense and in some cases they are actually given parameters and economic assumptions to use in examining legislation.

One of the items the Senator didn’t mention in his piece is that the CBO is prohibited from doing what you suggest. They never look at alternatives because they are legally prohibited from doing so.

The CBO’s charter is to analyze each piece of legislation as written completely on it’s own. They look at what existing laws say and project scenarios as “If this law doesn’t go into effect we get X. If this law is implemented we get Y.”. That’s it.

And whichever Congressional rep submits the bill for analysis can further control the results by including instructions to the CBO with their request (like those assumptions you mentioned). CBO analysis is also limited to a 20-year period. For that 20-year projection they must assume that there will be no other laws that impact the proposed law they are studying.

Want to make your bill look good? Write it so that you hand out all the goodies immediately upon enactment and have the taxes that pay for it start 10 years later at a low rate that increases 10 years after that. Then have a 2nd law in waiting that repeals all the taxes that pay for the 1st bill. The CBO isn’t allowed to consider that 2nd bill unless it is submitted to them at the same time and has instructions to look at the total impact of both bills together.

When the Senator mentions that the CBO is “independent”, he means “independent of the White House”. It is not and never has been independent of Congressional meddling with it’s results.

    Jim Roye

    Written by

    Jim Roye