How To Read A CBO Report - Lessons for Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI)
One thing that has been overwhelmingly obvious in the discussion of Paul Ryan’s roadmap is that lots of people who should know better — including, alas, reporters at the Washington Post — don’t know how to read a CBO report. They think you can just skim it and get the gist; and people like Mr. Ryan have taken advantage of that misconception.No surprise that conservatives are serving up warmed over and disguised Bushnomics as the answer to the mess they got the nation into. They say insanity is coninuing to bang your head into a wall expecting to get a different result from the last time. Republicans keep leading America down the road to disaster and expecting different results from the last time. Is is time for change - time to go forward instead of constantly going in reverse. Why do conservatives hate America.
What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that — no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be. CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business.
So how do you spot that funny business? One way is to go through the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb. Another is to look at the estimate, and see if anything odd jumps out — then search for the sources of that oddity.
So, the key table in the CBO report on the Ryan plan (pdf) looks like this:
DESCRIPTIONCBO
Look at the column for 2020, which allegedly shows a big reduction in the deficit for that year. What do we see?
Well, the Ryan plan as described is a combination of tax cuts and cuts in entitlement spending. So where does this show in the CBO estimate?
On the tax side, we immediately see that the CBO finds no effect — revenue with the Ryan plan is the same as without it. Huh? Search the report, and you find:
The proposal would make significant changes to the tax system. However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (which is one interpretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.
In short, the CBO was told to disregard any possible effects of the tax cuts; that’s a pretty good way to make the plan seem affordable.
Meanwhile, what about the spending side? Entitlements reform is supposed to be the core of the plan. But for 2020, the CBO table shows slightly higher spending on Social Security, and only modest reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. The big action is a huge fall in “Other.” What’s that about?
Again, search the text and you find:
From 2010 through 2019, nondefense discretionary spending would be frozen at 2009 levels in nominal terms.
OK, that’s an old, familiar scam — it was used to inflate surplus projections back in 2001 to justify the Bush tax cuts. Keeping nominal spending constant means deep cuts in real per capita terms — about 25 percent over a decade. That’s not going to happen: nondefense discretionary spending is already at a low point as a share of GDP, and unless someone can detail how such massive further cuts are possible, they’re just blowing smoke.
And, crucially, this means that most of the alleged savings have nothing to do with the supposed core of the Ryan plan, entitlement reform; they’re just invented out of thin air.
So if you read the CBO report correctly, it actually provides no support at all for Ryan. It’s a testimony to the gullibility of DC that anyone imagines differently.
What the Pezzi saga tells us about Breitbart
Earlier this week, we read an on-line column which provided one of the most thorough and well-researched examinations of the many controversies surrounding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. We asked the author of the column for permission to reprint his article. Since publishing the articles, we have been made aware of other writings from this author which do not reflect the principles and values of this site. Because of this, we have removed the articles from Big Government. While we stand by the information contained in the articles we published, we do not wish to see the underlying issue confused or diminished by other work the author has done. We regret the error. ( statement released by BigGovernment)Pezzi was wrong and a total wacko, but Breitbart removes the article yet stands by what Pezzi said. The only people left taking Breitbart seriously are the kool-aid addicts.
So, let me get this straight: After Breitbart and his "Big" websites became the focus of well-deserved criticism and national ridicule for posting a misleadingly edited video and smearing Shirley Sherrod as a racist, their defense was that Breitbart merely posted the video he was given, and he didn't bother doing any extra research. (Breitbart later conceded that the video was out of context and that he "should have waited for the full video.")
Yet in the wake of this embarrassment, Big Government sought out posts from a guy smearing Sherrod as a racist without doing any research into his background. Notice a pattern here? Breitbart and co. are so eager to cover their tracks and somehow "prove" that Sherrod is a racist that they have long-since abandoned any pretense of responsible behavior.
