• CBO: higher taxes on rich won't harm economy

[Master Dan]

WELL BILL HERE IS A COUNTER TO YOUR DOOM AND GLOOM??

I generally find that the CBO counters most facts or lack there of put out by the GOP (Government OOber Party)


· CBO: higher taxeson rich won't harm economy
By Steve Benen
FriNov 9, 2012 1:28 PM EST
Justyesterday, as talks over taxes and spending grew a little louder in Washington,House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) citedan "independent" report that found tax increases on the wealthy would"cost our economy more than 700,000 jobs."
Theargument, not surprisingly, was debunkedmonths ago. But the rhetoric raises a worthwhile question: what wouldhappen if a bipartisan agreement fails to materialize, and tax increasesautomatically kick in on Jan. 1?
Yesterday,the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reportedthe looming tax hikes and spending cuts would undermine the economy in 2013, butthe "least harmful component of the coming fiscal consolidation isprecisely what Democrats are demanding: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts forhigh earners."
CBO doesn't examine the topbracket Bush tax cuts directly. But it does look at two competing scenarios:One where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut areextended; another where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll taxcut and the Bush tax cuts for top earners are extended.
The former, CBO says, wouldincrease employment by 1.8 million full time equivalent employees in 2013relative to allowing everything to lapse. The latter would increase employmentby 1.6 million. The difference, 200,000 full time equivalent jobs, isattributable to the expiration of the top bracket Bush tax cuts alone.
By comparison, other layersof the fiscal cliff save less money and have far greater economic consequences.Failing to extend the expiring payroll tax cut and expiring emergencyunemployment benefits through 2014 would cost the economy about 800,000 jobs,according to CBO. The two halves of the sequester -- the defense cuts and thedomestic cuts -- would each cost the economy about 400,000 full time equivalentjobs.
So,according to the CBO, the Democratic priorities do more to help the economy,and the Republican priorities do less. The 700,000 figure cited by the HouseSpeaker has no basis in reality at all.
MaybeRepublicans will try to suppressthis, too?

 

[seasoned]

Really, this is no way to talk (type). Please Master Dan smaller letters mean dialog, large letters mean yelling.

Thanks.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The CBO also says:

http://www.examiner.com/article/cbo...-9-1-if-deal-on-fiscal-cliff-is-not-reached-1

CBO warns unemployment will rise to 9.1% if deal on fiscal cliff is not reached
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Thursday released a new analysis of what the impact would be on the economy, jobs, and the deficit if a solution is not reached on the upcoming fiscal cliff. Meanwhile, stocks continue to fall over fiscal cliff fears.

 

[billc]

Yeah...the CBO can only deal with the numbers it is given, it can't do it's own research...so...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/03/romancing_the_cbo.html

Romancing the CBO

How to get a better score for your bill.

It's not that those numbers are wrong. It's that they rely on assumptions that don't always square with reality. Any time the CBO scores a piece of legislation, it measures the bill's cost based on current law—in other words, it assumes that the status quo is going to hold, even if everyone knows it won't. Members of Congress can therefore tweak a bill to make it look more favorable in the short-term than it really is in the long run.

Yeah...and some more on the accuracy of the CBO...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/c...-consistently-wrong-on-health-care-estimates/

Lawmakers often cite CBO figures as holy writ and use them in arguments supporting or opposing proposed measures. But can the CBO estimate costs of complex programs down to the last billion dollars? Do CBO numbers present an accurate picture to legislators and to the American people?

Here is how it was manipulated on the health care issue...

“Everyone should know that any number will be either too high or too low,” Donald Marron, a former CBO deputy director told The Daily Caller.
There are a number of problems associated with CBO’s estimates. Some have to do with the games Congress itself plays with numbers. In the case of highly complex programs like health care, a myriad of variables can throw estimates off. In fact, the government’s track record for estimating health-care program costs is poor.
Congress usually asks CBO to judge a bill’s budget impact over 10 years. In the case of health-care reform, Congress is seeking to fudge the budget impact of the program by starting the program in 2013. But the CBO’s 10-year estimates start with 2010, so that they actually include costs for seven program years.
In addition, the CBO estimates show costs rising dramatically over time. “The estimate on the Senate bill could give the impression the program will cost $85 billion a year,” said Marron.
But the CBO estimate shows costs of more than $200 billion at year 10 and rising. In other words, costs for the original Senate bill could run well over $2 trillion during the second decade of the program.

And some more on how the CBO is manipulated by congress...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/21/congress-used-cbo-to-get-the-a

Holtz-Eakin, who currently heads the American Action Forum, isn’t just any critic: From 2003 to 2005, he ran the Congressional Budget Office himself. His time at the CBO gave him great respect for the office's capabilities and the quality of its work. It also gave him firsthand knowledge of the scoring process, its inherent limitations, and the ways that determined members of Congress can use the process to their political advantage.

Holtz-Eakin: I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for the quality of the estimates that CBO produces. Period. I have nothing but a deep understanding of the rules by which they must use those estimates, and the way the law was written in order to get the deficit reduction bottom line—by reading out some costs, using budget gimmicks, putting in unrealistic estimates of future Medicare reductions. None of that has anything to do with CBO’s competence or professionalism. That’s a congressional problem. Congress used CBO to get the answer they wanted. I get that. I ran the CBO. They used me too. So, I don’t think it’s having it both ways. I’ve always defended CBO’s work. I’m complaining about the way that Congress wrote the law.

 

[billc]

The head of the CBO can also be...persuaded...into the results the administration wants...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_bullies_cbo_chief_the_ch.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]After CBO chief Doug Elmendorf told Congress that passing Obamacare would add substantially to the federal deficit over the next ten years - unwelcome news for Obama who has watched Dems in Congress begin to get cold feet over his health care reform - the president "invited" (ordered?) Elmendorf to a meeting at the White House.

Understand that the Congressional Budget Office is answerable to Congress, not the White House. But this didn't seem to matter to our Chicago Machine president who apparently had some words with the CBO chief about playing ball and not rocking the boat.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece explains:

[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Writing on his blog after news of the meeting became public, Mr. Elmendorf diplomatically noted that "The President asked me and outside experts for our views about achieving cost

savings​

​

in health reform." No doubt he did. But Mr. Elmendorf, a Democrat, will also have received the message that continuing apostasy will not be good for his future political career.

As Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Republican who ran CBO from 2003 to 2005, put it, "The only appearance could be that they're leaning on him. CBO was created for Congress, for independent analysis. The White House did him [Elmendorf] a terrible disservice." On second thought, perhaps we're being unfair to LBJ, whose method was a combination of muscle and flattery. Mr. Obama learned his methods in Chicago.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=times new roman,times]
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times][/FONT]