I almost never bother with editorials from the Wall St. Journal, which read to me something like, “Boy, if toasters could sing and dance, breakfast would be a lot more fun!”
But this AMs entry was almost like a satire—an Onion version—of their usual fare. They want to get rid of the Congressional Budget Office (and the tax revenue score-keeper, the Joint Tax Committee) because they were created, according to the Journal, by Democrats to “support the agenda of expanding government.”
In their place, the Journal’s ed board suggests that:
The wisest course is to abolish CBO and Joint Tax and allow open debate about the tax and spending implications of policy changes. Let the politicians with the authority to make these decisions be accountable for the results.
What could go wrong with that?
There’s been a fair bit of scribbling about the roles and practices of CBO since the election, with various technocratic R’s advocating that the new Congressional majority reappoint the current director, Doug Elmendorf, vs. more ideological R’s suggesting they get their own guy or gal in there.
Across the way from the singing toaster editorial, conservative writer Avik Roy has a more thoughtful piece on ways he thinks the budget agency can derive “better” numbers. (Note that he too casts a vote for Elmendorf staying on the job.) I disagree with his calls for “dynamic scoring,” which will not produce better, as in more accurate, numbers. It will just produce more numbers.
Let me explain. Dynamic scoring calls for adding macroeconomic impacts to budget estimates. If, for example, your model of the economy is jiggered to show that cutting taxes boosts productivity, labor supply, and growth, then said growth can be tapped to offset the revenue lost by the tax cut. CBO doesn’t go there, because there’s insufficient evidence that such macroeconomic feedback effects can be reliably estimated (CBO does allow for some behavioral responses to tax changes, such as timing changes in realizing capital gains).
Thus, dynamic scoring that correctly reflects this uncertainty returns a range of results—that’s what I mean by it gives you more numbers. For example, a dynamic score of Rep. Dave Camp’s tax reform plan estimated that it would raise the level of GDP over ten years by between nothing (0.1%) and a lot (1.6%). Guess which end of that spectrum fans of his plan would choose to highlight?
While I don’t always agree with CBO, I think they’re already giving us the best numbers they can given the widely accepted rules and findings of empirical economics. That’s why the director, if he or she is doing the job, doesn’t matter nearly as much as the recent dust-up would suggest. The job is not to be innovative. It’s to honestly apply the state of our knowledge.
In fact, here’s where I’d argue the budget office could improve: by being more explicit about the limits of that knowledge state. CBO’s estimates should always be delivered to the public with explicit confidence intervals, to better convey to the public the uncertainty of their guesstimates.
I was reminded of the need for this approach in their recent report on the impact of the Senate immigration bill on the economy. They reported the following: “CBO’s central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation than under current law.” Given the uncertainty of such an estimate—10 and 20 years away!–it seems inconceivable that we could measure such a small change with any degree of accuracy that would distinguish 0.1 percent from good old 0 percent.
In such cases, they should be very straight up about the confidence interval around their estimates, and they should do the same thing with their budget estimates (in fact, they have done so in the past; btw, dynamic scoring would make those intervals much wider). Here in Washington, we all have a bad habit of talking about estimates made under great uncertainty as if they were facts etched in stone, especially when they boost our positions.
Instead of pretending they can accurately estimate macroeconomic impacts, as Roy and the Journal would like, the CBO could help us avoid our bad habit of over-confidence in their current estimates by really hammering on the uncertainty therein.