Certainly true, but in most cases it makes more sense than assuming that there will be no changes in behavior.
Like with PPACA the assumption was that there would be 0 increase to healthcare consumption, which was so idiotic as to render their numbers worse than useless.
Now if weâre talking about a 0.01% increase in the gasoline tax, where the demand is already pretty inelastic, zero change to behavior is a perfectly reasonable assumption that wonât be off by very much at all.
But in something massive the impact of the change in behavior often dwarfs all other impacts combined rendering CBO numbers utter garbage.
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 âmostâ with âprecisely zeroâ.
Thatâs 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???
Sorry, I am fine with my wording.
Itâs simpler to follow the strategy that got ObamaCare adopted with a âprojected costâ of <$1 trillion: The CBO was forbidden to release its estimate (>>$1.5T, including commentary) until after it passed. 
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 thatâs because they canât 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 youâre going to assume those people get hired in 2024 there would be about 180b in lost revenue that wouldnât happen.
I get why the rule is there. You donât 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.
11 posts were split to a new topic: Is SAS the new Excel?
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, CBOâs actuary spilled his numbers (and the withheld report), portraying the â<$1Tâ pricetag as ludicrously low. The CBOâs 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 âtaxes.â 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 âtaxes.â 
Link? I recall the rest. Iâm 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.
âYouâve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I donât 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, preventionâitâs about diet, not diabetes. Itâs 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.â [62]
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 canât 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. Itâs probably not worth dragging too much. I do miss having the AO as a reference.
I believe there is a âCongress election thread of 2008â somewhere around hereâŚ
and replaced. day one was a busy day of big things!
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.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Is SAS the new Excel?
Moved interesting SAS side conversation to its own thread.
Well my last post was part of that conversation too.
fixed?
