So says the CBO and other non-partisian budget sources:
There’s only one problem with Boehner’s message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won’t actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.
If we lived in a just world with a functioning press, every GOP leader, at least, would be made to answer this simple question: why should the American public vote you into power when non-partisan budget experts agree that your stated plans would lead to higher deficits? Given the state of our oh-so liberal media, I predict that this question will be asked precisely zero times.
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
Yeeeeeeah, just like the CBO said the Healthcare Bill would reduce our tab, right? Oh, wait…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
yawn.
I’d like to see some people answer for that one, if you please, but I’m not gonna hold my breath. The CBO is far from fallible, as the HHS clearly points out – which, I might add, was more consistent with the reasons given when asked why someone was opposed to the health reform: that there’s no way to increase health rolls, cut medicare, and raise taxes on medical supplies and have the net result be a reduction in the cost of providing care. And yet has anyone been made to answer for that? Considering that a bunch of people thought this bill was a bad idea before it was passed because of the reasons that the HHS has now validated, and the passing of the healthcare bill was something that actually did happen, as opposed to Gaggle’s speculatory prattling, I’d say you have built a pretty poor case for holding up the CBO as a standard to answer to.
The media has been excessively kind to the Obama administration and to Congress, if you ask me, so the failures of your so-called “liberal” media to be, um, liberal-biased, might just be a facet of perspective. If the media was not liberal, well, why wasn’t the CBO lambasted for their faulty estimate?
And why, for that matter, is the CBO spending time on speculation as to what *woulda coulda didn’t* happen?
Barbie
Man, thats poor reaosning form a scientist. I am genuinely shocked.
“The CBO is far from fallible, as the HHS clearly points out ”
Why do you assume that the HHS report is ore accurate than the CBO report, especially since it contradicts the headline:
Not to mention the fact that, based on this article, the driver behind a lot of the pessimism is based on the notion that Congress will not in fact support the Medicare changes that Congress has added to the bill:
How was the CBO supposed to score the idea that the law doesn’t do what the law says it will do? And if that is your argument, then why do anything: Congress is obviously never going to hold costs down on anything, so we should just nuke the country now before the shit really hits the fan.
You know nothing about the relevant methodologies, assumptions, etc behind either report and just assume that the CBO MUST be wrong because another report from a different group kinda disagrees about the cost savings. That’s shoddy reasoning at best.
And then you argue that the mainstream media is too liberal by pointing out an article in the mainstream media with a dubious headline biased in ways that a conservative such as yourself loves? Really?
And since are discussing the report:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_affordable_care_acts_spend.html
Kevin,
First of all, the Gaggle post isn’t the least bit scientific in its approach.
Second, do you know what models and assumptions are utilized by the CBO in conducting its analysis? Presumably, the models utilized rely on assumed multipliers for stimulus spending and for tax cuts. Setting aside for the moment that all tax cuts are not created equal, Obama’s recently resigned economic adviser, Christina Romer, previously did significant studies on the tax cut multiplier that demonstrated a higher multiplier (about 3). Other studies have suggested the stimulus multiplier is only about 1. In other words, if Romer’s study and these other studies are correct, then the CBO is relying on the wrong models.
We do have some present day evidence suggesting stimulus spending has nowhere near the multiplier effect the CBO models and Keynesians credit it with: a tepid, at best, recovery and persistent high unemployment despite initial claims the stimulus would result in recovery and an unemployment rate that didn’t exceed 8%. So much for that.
Matt
Your reasoning is bad. The idea that the stimulus failed because the unemployment rate is high is silly. it could mean that, or it could mean that the start of the recession was much worse than first predicted — something that has been borne out by the actual numbers. Again, you assume, because it pleases you, that the effect must be wrong and ignore the starting baseline numbers. You are doing the same thing that Barnie is doing: assuming that because you hate the idea of the government, than anything that the CBO says the government does well must be flawed or mistaken.
It is not an impressive argument.
And matt isn’t evne right about the muliiplers:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf
They were well withing his purported range.
Kevin, I said the CBO has demonstrated fallibility. Don’t have a cow, man.
Kevin,
Per the CBO report you linked to, multipliers accorded to spending were generally higher than those for taxes (direct spending by the feds or states were given a range of 1.0 to 2.5; while the highest multiplier range given for any of the tax cuts was 0.5 to 1.7). So, only the low end of the range given for stimulus spending matches the multiplier of about 1 that some other studies have shown. I’m not sure how then you conclude I was wrong about the multipliers relied on by the CBO.
You’re right, the economy may have really been much worse than originally believed and that’s why it hasn’t rebounded with the stimulus spending as it was projected to. In fact, it might have been on the very precipice of another Great Depression. Oh wait, we were told over and over we were on that precipice. So, was the administration lying when they said the economy was far worse than they really thought it was?
Matt
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. The Administration out out a graph that showed where they expected things ot go with and without the stimulous. It assumed that things were really horrible. Subsequent numbers showed that the starting point of their plan was not really horrible. It was really, really horrible. Your linguistics aside, that doesn;t constitute lying.
As for the multipliers:
That was you. You cannot now claim that the CBO was outside the bounds when you just claimed that 3 was a fine multipler and they came nowhere near 3.
More to the point, you cannot assume that because you like the implications of the number 1 for a multiplier that the studies you mention but do not cite are more accurate than the consensus multipliers that the CBO uses. Again, you are arguing that because you like it, it must be so.
Barbie
Sorry, but you bashed the entire premise of an post because one report disagreed, kinda, with something the CBO said without knowing how the two reports disagreed or the assumptions or methodology behind either. You even demanded to know when someone whould be held accountable for that “failure” and spun the difference into a giant attack on the media and how they have been oh-so solicitous to Obama. All based on one report that the article you linked to does little to explain.
Kevin,
I disagree with your assessment of what went on here. I pointed out by linking to another article that CBO isn’t without fault, that they could very well be wrong about their predictions of the healthcare bill. This got very little press, despite it’s publication in MSM. And was any heat turned back on congress or the CBO after this came out? No. From my perspective, that’s pretty solicitous to Obama’s admin, as you termed it.
Did I misunderstasnd the premise of your post? Was it not that the GOP should have to answer to the CBO? As you said, “If we lived in a just world with a functioning press, every GOP leader, at least, would be made to answer this simple question: why should the American public vote you into power when non-partisan budget experts agree that your stated plans would lead to higher deficits?” My point is that perhaps we should choose something better than the CBO, or at least more substantial than the guesswork that you were citing by Gaggle. Also, a link would be helpful.
And no, I haven’t examined the differences in the methodologies. But if you’re going to criticize me to the degree you are doing here for that, by all means, why don’t you go ahead and enlighten me, otherwise I’m going to assume you don’t know this either.
Furthermore, as a scientist, fantasy-based speculation such as “hypothetically, what might the deficit look like if such-and-such had happened in 2009 even though such-and-such never actually happened” annoys the piss out of me. So, yes, I peed on your post. Sorry?
It wasn’t a “giant attack.” And I don’t hate government. I’m wary of it, and that wariness and distrust is spurned by huge federal bills such as the healthcare bill, especially when pretty everyone admitted was one of the farthest reaching federal laws every put out and one of the most divisive as well, when votes were practically bribed for the initial senate vote, and reconciliation was critical for it’s passage. It makes me uneasy about Washington when we pass bills that our lawmakers are scared about voting for or against because of how divided their constituents are. But as T will tell you, I’m a civilized libertarian, and I support government organization on smaller, more local levels.
Barbie
You attacked the entire premise of the article and the entire CBO because — long the gold standard in accounting estimates — based on one report that made assumptions about future policy in an article that did not describe why the report was better than the CBO’s and ignored, in the headline at least, the fact that the report did say that the costs would go down in the second decade. That is not an example of the CBO being wrong. You simply cannot got there from here, at least not without some wishful thinking.
And then you used an article in the mainstream media to argue that the media — despite Glen Beck, despite John McCain being the most invited guest on Sunday talk shows, etc, etc — that the media loves Obama. If that isn’t a giant attack then I don’t know what is.
Kevin,
First, you have simply chosen to accept the Administration’s line that the economy was worse than it realized in order to excuse their poor forecasts.
Romer’s multiplier of about 3 was for TAX CUTS , and the other studies multiplier of 1 was for stimulus spending. In other words, per Romer and some other recent studies (see Greg Mankwi for the other study’s authors) you get a larger multiplier from certain kinds of tax cuts than you do from stimulus spending. But the CBO is relying on multipliers that assume a greater impact from spending than tax cuts.
And I don’t just assume the higher multipliers for tax cuts are the more accurate. Rather, it stands to reason that leaving more money in the economy will result in it being put to more efficient use resulting in greater production than stimulus spending.
Matt
Again, you are believing something you that you want to believe. You believe the number one becasue you want to. I can point to recent studies that say the opposite:
By this logic, the CBO was too conservative. The point being you are assuming something because you want to, not because the evidence supports it.
As for ther tax situation — not really. A lot of tax money is saved or used to pay down debt, so it has minimal stimulous effects in a time of low demand and high debt and uncertainty. See, that story works just as well as yours. You have nothing other than your own biases for thinking the way you do.
[...] Remember, these were the policies that got us here in the first place. [...]
Apropos of nothing, thanks to Kevin, her new nickname shall henceforth be Shoothouse Barnie.
Ha!
And while, I’m picking on obvious typos, hey Barnie!
Wanna take another crack at this?
If they’re far from fallible, that means they’re infallible, and you’ve got no standing to question their conclusions.
I try not to complain about typoes, but that one really confused me for about four re-readings.