If I understood this jibberish I'd be dining tonight with Bill Gates.
However, I do understand that Congress never worked even a fraction as
hard on my behalf.
It really is long past a time for a change.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/10/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> House GOP's New Rule Allows Republicans to Hide Tax Cuts
> Friday, 09 January 2015 09:23 By Crystal Shepeard, Care2 | Report
> On Tuesday, the 114th Congress' term officially began with Republicans
> holding the majority in both chambers for the first time in eight years.
> After the photo ops of swearing in ceremonies with the Vice President and
> congressional members' families, Congress wasted no time to get to work
> (something that wasn't done much in the previous session). Most of the day
> was about finding co-sponsors and votes for bills that would make great
> press releases for constituents back home. In the House of
> Representatives,
> however, a very important new rule was passed that will change how
> legislation is evaluated.
> The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides nonpartisan economic
> analysis
> on the costs for any budgets or legislation proposed by Congress. When
> changes in taxation are involved, the nonpartisan Joint Committee On
> Taxation (JCT) issues reports regarding the revenue side. These two
> departments work together to create projections highlighting how a change
> in
> current policy would play out in certain scenarios.
> The rule passed along a straight party-line vote in the House on Tuesday
> changes which scenarios are used.
> Traditionally, the CBO and the JCT use two kinds of forecasting models: One
> that projects expenditures and revenues based on current policy assumptions
> (called the baseline) and another based on the result of proposed
> legislation (called scoring). They start with the baseline and scoring
> projects the possible effects on the baseline.
> Forecasting is all about "what-ifs." The CBO uses what historical data is
> available and makes assumptions that are less speculative by incorporating
> known economic trends. Using that information, the JCT then takes the
> proposed legislation and plugs in the changes to current policy. The CBO
> then makes additional projections based on the JCT's analysis.
> Oversimplified, the CBO looks at the big picture (macro effects) and the
> JCT
> looks at the smaller changes (micro) effects. Congress then uses the
> reports
> issued to tweak legislation if needed, as well as well as provide the
> necessary numbers to sell the bills or budgets to the public.
> The standard practice has long been to take a somewhat simplified approach.
> For example, an assumption of a number of people in the workforce paying a
> certain amount of taxes can give the government an estimated amount of
> revenue. Obviously, it is impossible to be 100 percent accurate with the
> number, but the estimations take in certain factors based on employment
> trends and tax rates. From there, the government can plan their
> expenditures
> based on that projected revenue. The CBO and JCT then take a new budget or
> policy and make predictions accordingly.
> Instead of focusing on the impact of fiscal policy based on a range of
> known
> factors, the House now requires that unknown reactions to the proposed
> legislation be incorporated in the analyses. This method, called dynamic
> scoring, incorporates the macroeconomic effects of the legislation. The
> CBO
> and JCT already do this to some extent, but present it as a range of
> possibilities. They also explain that they leave out many unknown scenarios
> due to the high level of uncertainty.
> The new rule requires that the highly uncertain scenarios be included.
> In a perfect world, dynamic scoring does have its benefits when the
> information is there. However, the more a piece of legislation differs from
> current policy, the more difficult it is to predict future activity.
> Furthermore, government planning takes a much longer term approach
> (generally ten years), and it becomes nearly impossible to predict what
> will
> happen that far out. Dynamic scoring requires predicting future
> administrations' policies, economic conditions and social behavior.
> In other words, the CBO and JCT are now required to be clairvoyant, which
> isn't sound economic policy.
> The Republicans are saying that they are simply requiring more information
> be included in the analyses. What they are failing to say is that the
> information is highly speculative and not based on known factors.
> Democrats,
> including the White House, have said that this is just another way to push
> through additional tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. This point is supported
> by an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which says
> the new rule will not only provide less information, but allow Republicans
> to hide tax cuts which could swell the deficit.
> This is much like how the Bush era tax cuts wiped out the surplus from the
> 1990s, creating a huge deficit, which led to the Great Recession and a
> period of unprecedented income inequality.
> For the past several years, the CBO reports have not been friendly to
> Republicans, as it has shown the cost saving measures of the ACA as well as
> shown the Bush era tax cuts did not stimulate the economy. So, naturally,
> the Republicans would like to end the use of, well, facts. In addition to
> the rule change, there are reports that the Republican majority in the
> Senate does not plan to reappoint the current CBO Director. Doug Elmendorf
> has a history with the CBO beginning in the mid-1990s and was first
> appointed as director in January 2009. He has maintained the nonpartisan
> tradition of analyses and has been commended by both Republicans and
> Democrats. He has also long been opposed to using dynamic scoring.
> His term ended on January 5, but will continue as director while he awaits
> the Senate's decision to reappoint or replace him.
> This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
> be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
> CRYSTAL SHEPEARD
> Crystal Shepeard writes for Care2.
> RELATED STORIES
> GOP Dogma on Taxes, Spending and Revenue vs. the Facts
> By Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future | News Analysis
> Republican "Cut, Cap and Balance" Plan Would Require a 25 Percent Cut in
> Every Government Program
> By Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress | Report
> Republicans "No Longer a Normal Governing Party," "Unfit for Government"
> By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed
> ________________________________________
> Show Comments
> Hide Comments
> <a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref">View the discussion
> thread.</a>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> House GOP's New Rule Allows Republicans to Hide Tax Cuts
> Friday, 09 January 2015 09:23 By Crystal Shepeard, Care2 | Report
> . font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.
> . On Tuesday, the 114th Congress' term officially began with
> Republicans holding the majority in both chambers for the first time in
> eight years. After the photo ops of swearing in ceremonies with the Vice
> President and congressional members' families, Congress wasted no time to
> get to work (something that wasn't done much in the previous session). Most
> of the day was about finding co-sponsors and votes for bills that would
> make
> great press releases for constituents back home. In the House of
> Representatives, however, a very important new rule was passed that will
> change how legislation is evaluated.
> . The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides nonpartisan economic
> analysis on the costs for any budgets or legislation proposed by Congress.
> When changes in taxation are involved, the nonpartisan Joint Committee On
> Taxation (JCT) issues reports regarding the revenue side. These two
> departments work together to create projections highlighting how a change
> in
> current policy would play out in certain scenarios.
> The rule passed along a straight party-line vote in the House on Tuesday
> changes which scenarios are used.
> Traditionally, the CBO and the JCT use two kinds of forecasting models: One
> that projects expenditures and revenues based on current policy assumptions
> (called the baseline) and another based on the result of proposed
> legislation (called scoring). They start with the baseline and scoring
> projects the possible effects on the baseline.
> Forecasting is all about "what-ifs." The CBO uses what historical data is
> available and makes assumptions that are less speculative by incorporating
> known economic trends. Using that information, the JCT then takes the
> proposed legislation and plugs in the changes to current policy. The CBO
> then makes additional projections based on the JCT's analysis.
> Oversimplified, the CBO looks at the big picture (macro effects) and the
> JCT
> looks at the smaller changes (micro) effects. Congress then uses the
> reports
> issued to tweak legislation if needed, as well as well as provide the
> necessary numbers to sell the bills or budgets to the public.
> The standard practice has long been to take a somewhat simplified approach.
> For example, an assumption of a number of people in the workforce paying a
> certain amount of taxes can give the government an estimated amount of
> revenue. Obviously, it is impossible to be 100 percent accurate with the
> number, but the estimations take in certain factors based on employment
> trends and tax rates. From there, the government can plan their
> expenditures
> based on that projected revenue. The CBO and JCT then take a new budget or
> policy and make predictions accordingly.
> Instead of focusing on the impact of fiscal policy based on a range of
> known
> factors, the House now requires that unknown reactions to the proposed
> legislation be incorporated in the analyses. This method, called dynamic
> scoring, incorporates the macroeconomic effects of the legislation. The CBO
> and JCT already do this to some extent, but present it as a range of
> possibilities. They also explain that they leave out many unknown scenarios
> due to the high level of uncertainty.
> The new rule requires that the highly uncertain scenarios be included.
> In a perfect world, dynamic scoring does have its benefits when the
> information is there. However, the more a piece of legislation differs from
> current policy, the more difficult it is to predict future activity.
> Furthermore, government planning takes a much longer term approach
> (generally ten years), and it becomes nearly impossible to predict what
> will
> happen that far out. Dynamic scoring requires predicting future
> administrations' policies, economic conditions and social behavior.
> In other words, the CBO and JCT are now required to be clairvoyant, which
> isn't sound economic policy.
> The Republicans are saying that they are simply requiring more information
> be included in the analyses. What they are failing to say is that the
> information is highly speculative and not based on known factors.
> Democrats,
> including the White House, have said that this is just another way to push
> through additional tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. This point is supported
> by an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which says
> the new rule will not only provide less information, but allow Republicans
> to hide tax cuts which could swell the deficit.
> This is much like how the Bush era tax cuts wiped out the surplus from the
> 1990s, creating a huge deficit, which led to the Great Recession and a
> period of unprecedented income inequality.
> For the past several years, the CBO reports have not been friendly to
> Republicans, as it has shown the cost saving measures of the ACA as well as
> shown the Bush era tax cuts did not stimulate the economy. So, naturally,
> the Republicans would like to end the use of, well, facts. In addition to
> the rule change, there are reports that the Republican majority in the
> Senate does not plan to reappoint the current CBO Director. Doug Elmendorf
> has a history with the CBO beginning in the mid-1990s and was first
> appointed as director in January 2009. He has maintained the nonpartisan
> tradition of analyses and has been commended by both Republicans and
> Democrats. He has also long been opposed to using dynamic scoring.
> His term ended on January 5, but will continue as director while he awaits
> the Senate's decision to reappoint or replace him.
> This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
> be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
> Crystal Shepeard
> Crystal Shepeard writes for Care2.
> Related Stories
> GOP Dogma on Taxes, Spending and Revenue vs. the Facts
> By Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future | News
> AnalysisRepublican "Cut, Cap and Balance" Plan Would Require a 25 Percent
> Cut in Every Government Program
> By Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress | ReportRepublicans "No Longer a Normal
> Governing Party," "Unfit for Government"
> By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed
>
> Show Comments
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment