Maybe as a percentage of items that CBO calculates this is - conceivably - accurate.
As a percentage of CBO numbers discussed by politicians in the media, you should replace the word “most” with “precisely zero”.
That’s no way to speak to the genius who figured out how to pay off the national debt in 3 short years. Why do you hate America, you traitor???
3 Likes
Sorry, I am fine with my wording.
It’s simpler to follow the strategy that got ObamaCare adopted with a “projected cost” of <$1 trillion: The CBO was forbidden to release its estimate (>>$1.5T, including commentary) until after it passed. 
1 Like
The house bill that they passed telling the IRS not to hire all those people is an example of CBO estimates being dumb.
Total estimate is $114b increase in deficit, but that’s because they can’t reflect lower headcount past 2023. So you have 10 years of lost revenue due to fewer audits, but only 1 year of cost savings. Realistically there about 70b * 9 years that should be included to reduce the deficit. Alternatively if you’re going to assume those people get hired in 2024 there would be about 180b in lost revenue that wouldn’t happen.
I get why the rule is there. You don’t want bills that esstiantely spend for 9 years and then some BS action in year 10 to offset al that spending that will never actually happen, but it does make the estimate for this bill completely meaningless.
1 Like
Could you describe this? I recall a very similar controversy around Part D.
Obama touted the ACA as having a price tag <$1T. That was apparently a big selling point in getting many in Congress on board. With ACA adopted, CBO’s actuary spilled his numbers (and the withheld report), portraying the “<$1T” pricetag as ludicrously low. The CBO’s lowest estimate was >$1.5T, which assumed that everything would work perfectly.
ACA was also painstakingly crafted in Congress so that its penalties would not be portrayed as “taxes.” This was to avoid the problem that the final bill was initiated in the Senate, which has no authority to initiate a tax bill (also to avoid members of Congress having to admit that the ACA was increasing taxes). That was also ignored by Chief Justice Roberts when he made the final SCOTUS vote for the 5-4 majority, arguing that the penalties were OK because they are “taxes.” 
Link? I recall the rest. I’m just interested in the details on the CBO being forbidden to publish.
(And again, I remember something very similar involving Part D, so it makes sense.)
Yes and the the last laugh is on everyone since the penalty was killed anyway, along with half of the bill.
- March 9, 2010: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA-12th District] speaks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties:
“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” [62]
-
March 18, 2010: The preliminary estimate from the CBO is presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In Table 2. under “Effects on Insurance Coverage,” the chart shows the “Post-Policy Uninsured Population” of the nonelderly going from 50 million in 2010 to 23 million in 2019. [63]
How the ACA (Obamacare) Was Negotiated - The A-MARK Foundation
There is no evidence that Pelosi told anyone before the vote. The news that the CBO was told not to release their report was discussed in places like the old AO. I can’t find anything official (including the 2010 Forbes article), but I remember how remarkable it was that a government-employed actuary went to Forbes to publish his findings.
Recent: Congressional Budget Office Confirms The Folly And Waste Of Expanded Obamacare Subsidies
It looks to me like the CBO published their report on the same day-- March 18, 2010? But maybe you mean some alternative report.
But okay. It’s probably not worth dragging too much. I do miss having the AO as a reference.
2 Likes
I believe there is a “Congress election thread of 2008” somewhere around here…
1 Like
and replaced. day one was a busy day of big things!
1 Like
Well IIRC part of the issue with Obamacare was that the bill was designed so that the CBO score included 10 years of additional revenue but only 6 (or maybe 7?) years of additional expenses. So it was incredibly misleading.
And the revenue estimates were crazy high and the expense estimates were super-crazy low.
Moved interesting SAS side conversation to its own thread.
Well my last post was part of that conversation too.
fixed?
1 Like
Nowhere except in Arizona is there much clamor about the 2022 US elections being fixed, and they weren’t in AZ either.
For full clarity for others who might be reading, my “fixed” comment earlier was in reference to twig’s statement about a post that was actually related to a topic that was split off to a separate thread.
In terms of the topic of the current thread, my view regarding “fixed elections” will be tied directly to gerrymandering which I do believe took place with some of the recent redistricting for the House.