http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mick-m...le/2624609

Given how it has repeatedly failed on health care and its static models make no sense in the real world, maybe it is time to save the money and scrap the CBO.

Dont scrap it. Just replace it with a poo flinging monkey. Costs less, and more accurate.

Straight from Wikipedia:

Quote:The CBO's creation stems from a fight between President Richard Nixon and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Congress wanted to protect its power of the purse from the executive.[5][6] The CBO was created "within the legislative branch to bolster Congress’s budgetary understanding and ability to act. Lawmakers' aim was both technical and political: Generate a source of budgetary expertise to aid in writing annual budgets and lessen the legislature’s reliance on the president's Office of Management and Budget."[5] Since its creation, the CBO has since supplanted the OMB "as the authoritative source of information on the economy and the budget in the eyes of Congress, the press, and the public."[4]

Still seems like a very relevant mission, to me.

I think you need the CBO for any bill to be passed through the Senate under reconciliation and simple majority.

CBO only scores what is given to them. If they are given false stats or numbers, that's what they will end up spitting out. Give them correct info, they will be accurate. They are never given accurate info though. Partisans looking out for their interests.

(06-04-2017 01:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  CBO only scores what is given to them. If they are given false stats or numbers, that's what they will end up spitting out. Give them correct info, they will be accurate. They are never given accurate info though. Partisans looking out for their interests.

Thats just it. They are given "statutes" that generally just reflect the individual benefit but dont necessarily have national dollar amounts attached to them. CBO determines the "cost". Its an estimate---so its not going to be perfect. Its nothing more than a "best educated guess". That said, after years and years of wildly inaccurate estimates (sometimes off by 200%, 300% or even more)---its probably time to revamp the models and assumptions being used over there.

In the case of Obamacare, they gave an honest assessment based on the lies they were given to work with. They put out estimates but in a rare move for them, they flat out said it was based on the lies they were given and in reality it was going to be a disaster.

They are off 200% because they are given info that's 200% off.

There isn't a problem with the CBO per se, the problem lies with those giving it false information to work with.

(06-04-2017 02:28 PM)Paul M Wrote:  In the case of Obamacare, they gave an honest assessment based on the lies they were given to work with. They put out estimates but in a rare move for them, they flat out said it was based on the lies they were given and in reality it was going to be a disaster.

They are off 200% because they are given info that's 200% off.

There isn't a problem with the CBO per se, the problem lies with those giving it false information to work with.

Their given the actual law. The congress and president may have lied to the people, but CBO gets the actual legislation to score. If the CBO said that, then the only thing I can figure is the legislation conflicts with itself in certain areas that were relevant to assumptions made while scoring it. But the actual provisions in the law is what their scoring is based on. I suppose another possibility is they changed the law after it was scored. Its not the first time government estimates are off (or even the most egregious). Like I said, its just an estimate. Frankly, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that indicates that if a bill ends up costing substantially more than was predicted, its automatically repealed unless it gets a 2/3rds majorityof both houses of Congress and a presidential signature to stay in affect (as it was originally passed under false pretenses). What you want to bet that the CBO estimate accuracy would suddenly and inexplicably improve dramatically if such an amendment existed?

The legislation contains the lies. Obamacare was page after page of intentionally wrong assumptions, distortions, misleads, omissions, additions, and like I said, flat out lies.

CBO scores the lies, or facts, given them.

Without the CBO, we just get a WH painting a rosy picture of everything they want to pass.

I don't want that whether it's Obama or Trump. No matter how flawed, we need an, supposed, unbiased score. Sure, it's fatally flawed, but it's all we have to counter a WH getting away unchallenged on it's claims.

(06-03-2017 11:18 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Dont scrap it. Just replace it with a poo flinging monkey. Costs less, and more accurate.

Harry Reid is available.

The CBO needs vetting and improving. I don't trust its numbers. It still has a relevant purpose.

(06-04-2017 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:28 PM)Paul M Wrote:  In the case of Obamacare, they gave an honest assessment based on the lies they were given to work with. They put out estimates but in a rare move for them, they flat out said it was based on the lies they were given and in reality it was going to be a disaster.

They are off 200% because they are given info that's 200% off.

There isn't a problem with the CBO per se, the problem lies with those giving it false information to work with.

Their given the actual law. The congress and president may have lied to the people, but CBO gets the actual legislation to score. If the CBO said that, then the only thing I can figure is the legislation conflicts with itself in certain areas that were relevant to assumptions made while scoring it. But the actual provisions in the law is what their scoring is based on. I suppose another possibility is they changed the law after it was scored. Its not the first time government estimates are off (or even the most egregious). Like I said, its just an estimate. Frankly, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that indicates that if a bill ends up costing substantially more than was predicted, its automatically repealed unless it gets a 2/3rds majorityof both houses of Congress and a presidential signature to stay in affect (as it was originally passed under false pretenses). What you want to bet that the CBO estimate accuracy would suddenly and inexplicably improve dramatically if such an amendment existed?

That's a hell of an idea, but I'm betting no Washington politician will go near that - it might put the finger on them to make a hard choice......and a hard choice is the last thing any of them want.

I'm wondering of they could just write legislation that would require the repeal if it costs too much.....ah, they'd just "remove" that provision when the time came and skate on making a hard choice.......

(06-05-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The CBO needs vetting and improving. I don't trust its numbers. It still has a relevant purpose.

The problem is the concept. CBO takes the assumptions that Congress gives it and cranks the numbers from there. They don't evaluate the assumptions themselves, they just crunch the numbers. In some of the reports on Obamacare, they came about as close as I've ever seen to saying that the assumptions were bogus. I thought the republicans were kind of stupid in this area. Where CBO expressed some concern about assumptions, it seems to me that republicans should have asked them to rerun the numbers with different assumptions, and brought that into the debate. I'm not sure why they didn't.

If we want CBO to function as an objective evaluator, then we need to give them control over the assumptions. I'm quite certain we'd get vastly different answers from them if they had control of their assumptions.

(06-05-2017 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is the concept. CBO takes the assumptions that Congress gives it and cranks the numbers from there.

And without the CBO, that exact same thing would instead be done by the executive branch's Office of Budget .... as it was before the CBO was created.

I don't see anything wrong with the legislative branch having it's own budget office for crunching the numbers on congressional proposals.

(06-05-2017 08:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we want CBO to function as an objective evaluator, then we need to give them control over the assumptions. I'm quite certain we'd get vastly different answers from them if they had control of their assumptions.

That sounds like an entirely different mission. You're talking about something like a "Congressional Office of Legislative Critique and Evaluation".

If such a thing were created, and you introduce subjective measurements of a proposal ... I can only guess that would have substantial control and power over a proposal getting a green light or shot down, and thus way too easy to come under the influence of the political machine.

(06-06-2017 11:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That sounds like an entirely different mission. You're talking about something like a "Congressional Office of Legislative Critique and Evaluation".
If such a thing were created, and you introduce subjective measurements of a proposal ... I can only guess that would have substantial control and power over a proposal getting a green light or shot down, and thus way too easy to come under the influence of the political machine.

But that's the problem. CBO is perceived as doing some sort of objective analysis, when what they actually do is take very subjective, partisan assumptions and run numbers based on those assumptions. It's like reading one side's calculation of damages in a lawsuit, without reading the other's.

If CBO is correctly perceived as providing a partisan rather than objective analysis, that would solve some problems. For one, one side wouldn't be claiming CBO's analysis as the final word. For another, when those assumptions never materialize, the other side wouldn't be pointing fingers at CBO as incompetent.

I understand what you're saying ... but the point is that the CBO can't contain any amount of subjective evaluation in what they're handed. That would give it too much power. It needs to just be a calculator, for any given proposal.

Not saying that what you're proposing is a bad proposal or invalid, just that I think the CBO's mission should be fixed on just being a calculator.

(06-06-2017 01:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I understand what you're saying ... but the point is that the CBO can't contain any amount of subjective evaluation in what they're handed. That would give it too much power. It needs to just be a calculator, for any given proposal.
Not saying that what you're proposing is a bad proposal or invalid, just that I think the CBO's mission should be fixed on just being a calculator.

But CBO is all subjective. That's the problem. That's why their projections are consistently so far off. They do a good job of what they do. It's just that what they do isn't structured to give us accurate answers.

Maybe do this. On each bill, have the D's give them a set of assumptions, and have the R's give them a set of assumptions. Tell them to calculate both, and over time we will figure out who has the more realistic assumptions.

(06-04-2017 03:36 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Without the CBO, we just get a WH painting a rosy picture of everything they want to pass.

I don't want that whether it's Obama or Trump. No matter how flawed, we need an, supposed, unbiased score. Sure, it's fatally flawed, but it's all we have to counter a WH getting away unchallenged on it's claims.

So, it's a political entity. Depending on which party is in the WH. Get rid of it. If their work depend on others giving it information they're no better than weather forecasters who usually don't get anything right. They can do just as well with a weather rock.

(06-06-2017 04:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So, it's a political entity. Depending on which party is in the WH. Get rid of it. If their work depend on others giving it information they're no better than weather forecasters who usually don't get anything right. They can do just as well with a weather rock.

No, depending on which party controls Congress--it's the CBO, remember. Although technically, I think anyone from either party can request a projection. What I'm not sure of is whether once a projection has been made, anyone can request the same projection be made with different assumptions.

But as long as it is fed partisan information, it is going to produce partisan results.

But the important thing to remember when there is a headline such as, "CBO Says Obamacare Will Reduce the Deficit," is that no, that's not what CBO said, because CBO is not capable of saying that.