From an article by Philip Joyce (UMD):
…And CBO Directors—all of them—have always known that when their analyses throw cold water on particular proposals, the people who support those proposals will fire back. It is the fact that CBO has built up credibility over its half century that makes those individuals feel that they must come up with reasons why CBO numbers should not be trusted.
There are two aspects of the current attacks on CBO, however, that are relatively unusual and highly unfortunate. The first is the suggestion that CBO staff are politically biased, with the evidence provided being that some CBO staff, over the past 25 years, donated to Democratic candidates or left-leaning organizations. The significance of this claim was thoroughly debunked by the Washington Post fact-checker. Moreover, there are substantial formal and informal checks aimed at preventing political bias from influencing CBO analyses. In fact, the statute that set up CBO explicitly states that CBO staff are to be hired “without regard to political affiliation,” and the culture established by Alice Rivlin consistently reinforces its nonpartisan ethic. And it is important to note the difference between being nonpartisan and “bipartisan”; the former means that you are not allowing political considerations to influence your work, while the latter involves seeking cooperation between two political parties. It is an insult to these hard-working, committed professionals to suggest that they are somehow trying to make policies of a particular party, or a particular President, harder to achieve because of some political bias.
The second is that increasingly many of these criticisms of CBO are coming not from the executive branch, but from inside of the Congress. These include both factual misrepresentations (such as the claim that CBO understated the revenue effects of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, when the difference was entirely related to COVID-era inflation that was unanticipated by everyone) and attacks on the legitimacy of CBO itself. Of particular concern is the general lack of support shown by the Budget Committees, who have in the past generally risen to the defense of CBO in the face of executive branch criticisms. What makes the lack of Congressional support so unfortunate is the potential effect that it could have on the budgetary separation of powers. Weakening the CBO weakens Congress. Even a partisan Republican should understand that the aspects of CBO analysis that constrain a Republican President also limit overreach by a Democratic president. When the political winds change, they will need the CBO’s credibility to allow the Congress to effectively challenge future policies.
If Congress wishes to remain strong as an institution, and to continue to be able to play its constitutional role of being able to challenge the executive branch when it disagrees with its policy proposals, it needs the capacity for analysis, and the credibility, that CBO has earned over the years. Blithely attempting to toss that away in the interest of short-term policy gains is both ill-advised for the Congress and dangerous to democracy.
Entire article here.
Off topic but important. Why is my constitutionally protected right to protest infringed upon by an illegal ban on face masks, but potentially illegal abductions and kidnappings by unidentified federal agents in full tactical gear requires said facemasks and a denial of identification? This is not how a free democratic america operates. Why so silent on the matter rick stryker and bruce hall? Do you want to illegally detain another sitting United States senator?
I didn’t realize that was an economic issue, but I’ll address the reason why federal agents were wearing masks.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ice-agents-doxed-social-media-210319586.html
Protesters wear masks to they can be destructive and not identified for prosecution; federal agents wear masks so they can do their jobs and not be doxxed. It’s the same reason Mexican police wear masks when dealing with cartels.
bruce your response is garbage. are you telling me that protestors can only demonstrate if they show their face, so that others online can dox them as well? you seem to have no concern about the constitutional right of American citizens for free expression? nowhere in the constitution does it say they cannot where a mask when doing so. the federalist papers were anonymous for this same reason.
on the other hand, while I appreciate the role of law enforcement, I am not sure if their right to privacy is exactly the same. they are doing a job. not expressing their constitutional freedoms. if they don’t like those rules, they are free to find another job. people are lined up for the position.
and along these lines, the murderer in Minnesota dressed up as a police officer to commit his assassinations. you see the problem if we do not put some type of constraint on how these federal officers conduct their business? because people now fear challenging them, that criminals are impersonating officers to commit these heinous crimes.
and let me point out, federal officers are not raiding Mexican cartels. they are interfering with us citizens right to protest.
The First Amendment protects the right of people to peaceably assemble, a cornerstone of our participatory system. This right has its roots in English history, evolving from the Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights, which influenced the Framers of the Constitution.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/uf2.wkHUuXPTLi.lhhkWBQ–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_fox_news_articles_947/f9fd1865e95503de5bafc3174e1749d2
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1kCKMCu5C6HaYvqOki5U6A–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU0MA–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/fox_news_text_979/45fc7a7295f9e38ed847cd7a694564c9
Bruce you get disruptions when you send out the national guard and marines in an attempt to intimidate peaceful protesters. That has happened time and again with trump. I am peaceful but have encountered such individuals in the past. It has not made the event more peaceful.
Marines and active duty military should not be interacting with civilians on us soil. The only reason to do so is for intimidation purposes. Most police forces are completely adequate.
Rather than present garbage arguments, bruce, come up with something logical and real. And to further educate you, bruce, the magna carta was an attempt to dispel the absolute rights of the monarchy. Something trump seems to disagree with.
and bruce, let me elaborate on your response even more. even if one or two people are not peaceful in the protest, that does not give the government any right to impede on the fundamental first amendment rights of the rest of the people assembling peacefully. but the intent by sending in military troops, even before protests become less peaceful, is to intimidate and instigate such behavior in order to justify the use of the military. that is a dishonest way of doing governing. creating excuses to use force and intimidation.
but more importantly, bruce, is how you randomly respond to comments on this blog with garbage disguised as a thoughtful response. your Magna Carta comment is an example. you are trying to show how you are knowledgeable about history, but in reality it simply shows you are very ignorant of both history and the argument you are trying to make. the magna carta was an acknowledgement by the king that he was not above the law, and that the nobles of the land could not be detained or judged on an arbitrary basis based on the king’s whims. this is exactly how trump wants to operate. you see the irony, bruce, you are waiving the Magna Carta as a defense for trump, while that document stands against everything you and trump want to violate in our democracy. and you are too stoooopid to even understand that point, bruce, because you are the one who brought up the Magna Carta, in your typical ignorant response.
I thought this dovetailed nicely with this post defending the CBO and the one titled “Macroeconomic Implications of Premature Escalation in LA”.
From the CBO:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61256
Bruce Hall: Of course, CBO has assessments of the national level economic and budgetary effects, which you should also cite. Here’s one link.
So you are arguing that while illegal immigration was detrimental at the state and local levels, it was great for the nation? Hmmm.
so bruce, this should encourage you to defend the CBO as a source of nonpartisan information and data for congress to act on. rather than try to eliminate the CBO. so are you now in favor of letting the CBO continue to do its job without partisan interference?
Your defense of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is both timely and well-grounded. 필스토리