The 12 Principles of Fiscal Responsibility for the 2012 CampaignCRFB.org
Twelve principles for candidates to follow as they campaign in the 2012 election season to promote a substantive debate on addressing U.S. fiscal challenges.
Going Big Could Improve the Chances of SuccessCRFB.org
The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction(aka the "Super Committee") would be better off going big on a deal than going small.
For more info, visit http://crfb.org/go-big.
What We Hope to See from the Super CommitteeCRFB.org
This document outlines recommendations for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Super Committee). It urges the committee to:
1) Identify significantly more than $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, with a goal of stabilizing and reducing the debt as a share of the economy.
2) Enact serious reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health spending to address long-term budget drivers.
3) Pursue pro-growth tax reform and spending priorities to encourage economic growth, which will help get the fiscal situation under control.
4) Avoid budget gimmicks and honestly fix the deficit problem, then put enforcement measures in place to ensure savings materialize.
Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt 02-12CRFB.org
An analysis of how the policy proposals of the four main Republican presidential candidates will impact the national debt and federal budget deficits. For more on US Budget Watch, visit http://usbudgetwatch.org/.
The document summarizes Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time. It cites the country's high and growing debt levels, the modest deficit reduction from the recent debt deal, and lack of confidence in the political system's ability to enact further deficit reduction. The immediate effects of the downgrade are uncertain but likely to be limited given the small rating change and special status of US debt. However, failure to enact additional deficit reduction could lead to further downgrades and higher borrowing costs.
This document provides background on the US debt limit and the legislative process for adjusting it. It discusses what the debt limit is and Congress's role in it. It explains why increasing the debt limit is important to prevent defaulting on obligations. It then outlines the regular legislative order, procedures under the Gephardt Rule, and use of reconciliation for raising the limit. Finally, it reviews the historical record of legislative actions on the debt limit.
This document is a report from the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform that provides recommendations to reform the US federal budget process. The Commission recommends establishing statutory debt targets, a multi-year budgeting process to meet those targets, and strong enforcement mechanisms. The report also calls for increased transparency and accountability through improved budget presentations and accounting. The goal is to create a budget process that leads to more fiscally sustainable policies by requiring policymakers to consider long-term implications and keep the federal budget on a path to stabilizing and reducing debt levels.
This document discusses dynamic analysis and scoring used by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation to estimate the budgetary impacts of proposed tax legislation. It presents arguments from both Democrats and Republicans on whether dynamic scoring should be used. Republicans generally argue it provides more information, while Democrats cite concerns about uncertainty and bias. The document also notes debates around how tax policy affects the broader economy and society through government spending and programs.
The 12 Principles of Fiscal Responsibility for the 2012 CampaignCRFB.org
Twelve principles for candidates to follow as they campaign in the 2012 election season to promote a substantive debate on addressing U.S. fiscal challenges.
Going Big Could Improve the Chances of SuccessCRFB.org
The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction(aka the "Super Committee") would be better off going big on a deal than going small.
For more info, visit http://crfb.org/go-big.
What We Hope to See from the Super CommitteeCRFB.org
This document outlines recommendations for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Super Committee). It urges the committee to:
1) Identify significantly more than $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, with a goal of stabilizing and reducing the debt as a share of the economy.
2) Enact serious reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health spending to address long-term budget drivers.
3) Pursue pro-growth tax reform and spending priorities to encourage economic growth, which will help get the fiscal situation under control.
4) Avoid budget gimmicks and honestly fix the deficit problem, then put enforcement measures in place to ensure savings materialize.
Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt 02-12CRFB.org
An analysis of how the policy proposals of the four main Republican presidential candidates will impact the national debt and federal budget deficits. For more on US Budget Watch, visit http://usbudgetwatch.org/.
The document summarizes Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time. It cites the country's high and growing debt levels, the modest deficit reduction from the recent debt deal, and lack of confidence in the political system's ability to enact further deficit reduction. The immediate effects of the downgrade are uncertain but likely to be limited given the small rating change and special status of US debt. However, failure to enact additional deficit reduction could lead to further downgrades and higher borrowing costs.
This document provides background on the US debt limit and the legislative process for adjusting it. It discusses what the debt limit is and Congress's role in it. It explains why increasing the debt limit is important to prevent defaulting on obligations. It then outlines the regular legislative order, procedures under the Gephardt Rule, and use of reconciliation for raising the limit. Finally, it reviews the historical record of legislative actions on the debt limit.
This document is a report from the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform that provides recommendations to reform the US federal budget process. The Commission recommends establishing statutory debt targets, a multi-year budgeting process to meet those targets, and strong enforcement mechanisms. The report also calls for increased transparency and accountability through improved budget presentations and accounting. The goal is to create a budget process that leads to more fiscally sustainable policies by requiring policymakers to consider long-term implications and keep the federal budget on a path to stabilizing and reducing debt levels.
This document discusses dynamic analysis and scoring used by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation to estimate the budgetary impacts of proposed tax legislation. It presents arguments from both Democrats and Republicans on whether dynamic scoring should be used. Republicans generally argue it provides more information, while Democrats cite concerns about uncertainty and bias. The document also notes debates around how tax policy affects the broader economy and society through government spending and programs.
The document lists the participants of the 2010 Fiscal Summit in order of participation. It includes prominent politicians, economists, journalists, and leaders of organizations focused on fiscal policy, budget, and economics. The summit aimed to discuss the growing national debt and federal budget challenges facing the United States government.
The Pennsylvania Influencers list is made up of the Commonwealth’s top business, legal and civic leaders, whose opinions are respected by peers and elected officials alike.
This document provides an executive summary of the "Restoring America's Future" plan from the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force. The plan aims to simultaneously address the challenges of economic recovery and reducing unsustainable government debt. It proposes a one-year payroll tax holiday to boost the economy and job creation, as well as tax reform, spending cuts, and other measures to reduce the debt to sustainable levels and stabilize it below 60% of GDP by 2020. The 19-member bipartisan task force believes this comprehensive plan demonstrates that bipartisan cooperation can develop viable solutions to the nation's most serious fiscal problems.
The document summarizes the key points of consensus from experts and officials at the 2010 Fiscal Summit on America's fiscal challenges and potential solutions. There was general agreement that the US faces unsustainable long-term structural deficits, driven largely by rising healthcare costs, and that immediate action is needed to address the issues. Participants also agreed that reforming the healthcare system and tax code could help address the problems. While solutions will require bipartisan efforts, participants found the issues predictable and solvable if political will exists.
This document provides information on the Board of Directors and Corporate Officers of USG Corporation. It lists the 16 members of the Board of Directors, including their committee assignments. It also lists the 18 Corporate Officers, including their titles.
The document lists the Board of Directors and Officers of Ecolab Inc. in 1996.
The 17 member Board of Directors includes the CEO and Chairman of Ecolab as well as executives from other major companies.
It also lists the 26 senior executive officers of Ecolab, including the President and CEO, CFO, various Vice Presidents and General Managers who oversee different business units and functions.
This document outlines the agenda for an April 28, 2010 conference at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC focused on fiscal challenges and solutions. The all-day event included opening remarks, panels on fiscal issues moderated by journalists, a keynote interview with former President Bill Clinton, and luncheon programs on health care reform and the views of federal reserve chairmen. The conference provided a forum for government officials and policy experts to discuss the country's budget problems and potential reforms.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave an overview of the latest COVID relief deal and how much it will boost incomes and economic growth, and discussed the proposal for $2,000 checks.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published the only existing comprehensive study to detail and compare the fiscal cost of President Donald Trump and Vice President Joe Biden's campaign agendas. We estimate that both candidates would add trillions to the debt – but in very different ways.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released two new outlooks in september that highlight our nation's unsustainable budget trajectory over the next decade and beyond. From the federal debt reaching almost double the size of the economy by 2050, to deficits higher than in any point in modern history, CBO's report shows that our nation's fiscal outlook is much worse than estimated last year.
Slide deck from a May 11, 2020 webinar on who is buying the federal debt resulting from the COVID-19 economic relief efforts. Watch the video of the webinar at http://www.crfb.org/events/6-trillion-dollar-question-who-will-buy-our-debts.
The document discusses how population aging is contributing to slower economic growth and rising government debt in the United States. It presents a framework for Social Security reform that could increase economic growth by promoting delayed retirement, rewarding work at all ages, increasing savings, and improving the sustainability of Social Security. Key aspects of the framework include raising the retirement age while protecting vulnerable workers, basing benefits on all years of earnings rather than average lifetime earnings, and automatically enrolling workers in supplemental retirement accounts. The reform aims to boost labor supply, savings, and long-term economic growth while restoring solvency to Social Security.
This document discusses federal budget priorities and spending on children. It finds that while children represent the future and economic growth, they receive a relatively small portion of federal spending. Spending on children has declined as a share of the budget since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. It is more temporary, discretionary and lacks built-in growth compared to spending on older populations. The long-term outlook for children is especially troubling as interest on the debt is projected to surpass spending on children. Some potential solutions proposed include accounting for children more in budget projections, prioritizing children through new committees or positions, and improving policies around children's health care and dedicated revenue sources.
The document summarizes key findings from the Congressional Budget Office's April 2018 baseline report. It finds that trillion dollar deficits will return by 2020 under current policies, driven by recent tax cuts and spending increases. The growing costs of major health and retirement programs, along with rising interest costs on the debt, will cause debt levels to exceed the 50-year historical average as a share of the economy. Trillion dollar annual deficit reduction would be needed to balance the budget by 2028 or stabilize debt levels.
The document discusses various budget gimmicks that allow Congress to circumvent budget rules and create the appearance of fiscal discipline while not actually reducing deficits. It identifies 20 specific gimmicks and categorizes them into assumption gimmicks, manipulating the budget window, discretionary spending gimmicks, and other gimmicks. Examples are provided for many of the gimmicks. The overall document aims to educate about how budget rules are worked around and define technical terms.
The document summarizes a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that finds trillion dollar deficits will return by 2020 under current law. It notes that recent tax cuts and spending increases have increased the projected deficits substantially. The growing costs of Social Security, healthcare programs, and interest on the debt will be the main drivers of spending increases and higher deficits over the long run according to the CBO projections.
The document discusses projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding rising US budget deficits and debt levels. It notes that deficits were projected to exceed $1 trillion per year by 2022 under prior law and have increased further due to recent tax and spending legislation. If current policies are extended indefinitely, deficits could reach $2.4 trillion by 2028 and debt could exceed 113% of GDP, posing fiscal and economic risks. Higher interest rates could also significantly increase interest costs and debt levels.
A primer with answers to all your questions about a federal government shutdown. Such as, What services are affected in a shutdown and how?, How would federal employees be affected?, Does a government shutdown save money?, and more.
The document discusses the state of the US budget and debt prior to and under the Trump administration. The key points are:
- When Trump took office, debt was at a post-WWII high of over 100% of GDP and projected to rise sharply due to tax cuts, spending increases, and entitlement growth.
- Major trust funds were projected to become insolvent in the early-to-mid 2020s, requiring cuts up to 30% to benefits.
- Tax cuts, spending increases, and making temporary policies permanent could lead to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2027 and debt exceeding 108% of GDP.
- Entitlement growth and rising interest costs will exacerbate long-term debt problems if reforms are
This document discusses dynamic scoring and tax reform. It makes three key points:
1) Tax cuts do not pay for themselves through economic growth and increased revenue. Reasonable estimates show that tax cuts generate far less than $1 in revenue for every $1 cut.
2) Smart tax reform has the potential to generate $300-400 billion in additional revenue through dynamic effects, but debt-financed tax cuts have smaller growth effects because debt discourages investment and slows long-term growth.
3) Models that estimate the largest growth effects from tax cuts generally ignore the economic costs of increased debt, instead assuming future tax increases or spending cuts will stabilize debt levels. When debt impacts are considered, revenue-neutral
The document lists the participants of the 2010 Fiscal Summit in order of participation. It includes prominent politicians, economists, journalists, and leaders of organizations focused on fiscal policy, budget, and economics. The summit aimed to discuss the growing national debt and federal budget challenges facing the United States government.
The Pennsylvania Influencers list is made up of the Commonwealth’s top business, legal and civic leaders, whose opinions are respected by peers and elected officials alike.
This document provides an executive summary of the "Restoring America's Future" plan from the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force. The plan aims to simultaneously address the challenges of economic recovery and reducing unsustainable government debt. It proposes a one-year payroll tax holiday to boost the economy and job creation, as well as tax reform, spending cuts, and other measures to reduce the debt to sustainable levels and stabilize it below 60% of GDP by 2020. The 19-member bipartisan task force believes this comprehensive plan demonstrates that bipartisan cooperation can develop viable solutions to the nation's most serious fiscal problems.
The document summarizes the key points of consensus from experts and officials at the 2010 Fiscal Summit on America's fiscal challenges and potential solutions. There was general agreement that the US faces unsustainable long-term structural deficits, driven largely by rising healthcare costs, and that immediate action is needed to address the issues. Participants also agreed that reforming the healthcare system and tax code could help address the problems. While solutions will require bipartisan efforts, participants found the issues predictable and solvable if political will exists.
This document provides information on the Board of Directors and Corporate Officers of USG Corporation. It lists the 16 members of the Board of Directors, including their committee assignments. It also lists the 18 Corporate Officers, including their titles.
The document lists the Board of Directors and Officers of Ecolab Inc. in 1996.
The 17 member Board of Directors includes the CEO and Chairman of Ecolab as well as executives from other major companies.
It also lists the 26 senior executive officers of Ecolab, including the President and CEO, CFO, various Vice Presidents and General Managers who oversee different business units and functions.
This document outlines the agenda for an April 28, 2010 conference at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC focused on fiscal challenges and solutions. The all-day event included opening remarks, panels on fiscal issues moderated by journalists, a keynote interview with former President Bill Clinton, and luncheon programs on health care reform and the views of federal reserve chairmen. The conference provided a forum for government officials and policy experts to discuss the country's budget problems and potential reforms.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave an overview of the latest COVID relief deal and how much it will boost incomes and economic growth, and discussed the proposal for $2,000 checks.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published the only existing comprehensive study to detail and compare the fiscal cost of President Donald Trump and Vice President Joe Biden's campaign agendas. We estimate that both candidates would add trillions to the debt – but in very different ways.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released two new outlooks in september that highlight our nation's unsustainable budget trajectory over the next decade and beyond. From the federal debt reaching almost double the size of the economy by 2050, to deficits higher than in any point in modern history, CBO's report shows that our nation's fiscal outlook is much worse than estimated last year.
Slide deck from a May 11, 2020 webinar on who is buying the federal debt resulting from the COVID-19 economic relief efforts. Watch the video of the webinar at http://www.crfb.org/events/6-trillion-dollar-question-who-will-buy-our-debts.
The document discusses how population aging is contributing to slower economic growth and rising government debt in the United States. It presents a framework for Social Security reform that could increase economic growth by promoting delayed retirement, rewarding work at all ages, increasing savings, and improving the sustainability of Social Security. Key aspects of the framework include raising the retirement age while protecting vulnerable workers, basing benefits on all years of earnings rather than average lifetime earnings, and automatically enrolling workers in supplemental retirement accounts. The reform aims to boost labor supply, savings, and long-term economic growth while restoring solvency to Social Security.
This document discusses federal budget priorities and spending on children. It finds that while children represent the future and economic growth, they receive a relatively small portion of federal spending. Spending on children has declined as a share of the budget since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. It is more temporary, discretionary and lacks built-in growth compared to spending on older populations. The long-term outlook for children is especially troubling as interest on the debt is projected to surpass spending on children. Some potential solutions proposed include accounting for children more in budget projections, prioritizing children through new committees or positions, and improving policies around children's health care and dedicated revenue sources.
The document summarizes key findings from the Congressional Budget Office's April 2018 baseline report. It finds that trillion dollar deficits will return by 2020 under current policies, driven by recent tax cuts and spending increases. The growing costs of major health and retirement programs, along with rising interest costs on the debt, will cause debt levels to exceed the 50-year historical average as a share of the economy. Trillion dollar annual deficit reduction would be needed to balance the budget by 2028 or stabilize debt levels.
The document discusses various budget gimmicks that allow Congress to circumvent budget rules and create the appearance of fiscal discipline while not actually reducing deficits. It identifies 20 specific gimmicks and categorizes them into assumption gimmicks, manipulating the budget window, discretionary spending gimmicks, and other gimmicks. Examples are provided for many of the gimmicks. The overall document aims to educate about how budget rules are worked around and define technical terms.
The document summarizes a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that finds trillion dollar deficits will return by 2020 under current law. It notes that recent tax cuts and spending increases have increased the projected deficits substantially. The growing costs of Social Security, healthcare programs, and interest on the debt will be the main drivers of spending increases and higher deficits over the long run according to the CBO projections.
The document discusses projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding rising US budget deficits and debt levels. It notes that deficits were projected to exceed $1 trillion per year by 2022 under prior law and have increased further due to recent tax and spending legislation. If current policies are extended indefinitely, deficits could reach $2.4 trillion by 2028 and debt could exceed 113% of GDP, posing fiscal and economic risks. Higher interest rates could also significantly increase interest costs and debt levels.
A primer with answers to all your questions about a federal government shutdown. Such as, What services are affected in a shutdown and how?, How would federal employees be affected?, Does a government shutdown save money?, and more.
The document discusses the state of the US budget and debt prior to and under the Trump administration. The key points are:
- When Trump took office, debt was at a post-WWII high of over 100% of GDP and projected to rise sharply due to tax cuts, spending increases, and entitlement growth.
- Major trust funds were projected to become insolvent in the early-to-mid 2020s, requiring cuts up to 30% to benefits.
- Tax cuts, spending increases, and making temporary policies permanent could lead to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2027 and debt exceeding 108% of GDP.
- Entitlement growth and rising interest costs will exacerbate long-term debt problems if reforms are
This document discusses dynamic scoring and tax reform. It makes three key points:
1) Tax cuts do not pay for themselves through economic growth and increased revenue. Reasonable estimates show that tax cuts generate far less than $1 in revenue for every $1 cut.
2) Smart tax reform has the potential to generate $300-400 billion in additional revenue through dynamic effects, but debt-financed tax cuts have smaller growth effects because debt discourages investment and slows long-term growth.
3) Models that estimate the largest growth effects from tax cuts generally ignore the economic costs of increased debt, instead assuming future tax increases or spending cuts will stabilize debt levels. When debt impacts are considered, revenue-neutral
This document summarizes key information about health care spending and coverage in the United States. It shows that most health spending goes to hospital care, physician services, and prescription drugs. It is financed through private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and other payers. The US spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care than other countries. The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage through reforms like the individual mandate, Medicaid expansion and subsidies. Repealing the ACA could increase the number of uninsured by over 20 million and add $150-1.75 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years. Partial repeal options could also have significant costs depending on the specific provisions changed or delayed.
This document from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) analyzes and compares the fiscal impact of tax and spending proposals from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It finds that under current policies, debt is projected to rise to 127% of GDP by 2026. Clinton's proposals could increase debt to between 87-140% of GDP, while Trump's could increase debt to between 90-150% of GDP. To stabilize or reduce debt levels, the candidates' plans would require substantial tax increases, spending cuts, or higher than projected economic growth.
Slides from June 30, 2016 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget webinar on the June 2016 paper "Promises and Price Tags: A Fiscal Guide to the 2016 Election." Watch the video at http://www.crfb.org/events/watch-promises-and-price-tags-fiscal-guide-2016-election.
A comprehensive fiscal analysis of the policies put forward by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It shows how each would affect the federal budget and national debt. See more at http://crfb.org/.
15062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
केरल उच्च न्यायालय ने 11 जून, 2024 को मंडला पूजा में भाग लेने की अनुमति मांगने वाली 10 वर्षीय लड़की की रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष इस मुद्दे की लंबित प्रकृति पर जोर दिया गया। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अनिल के. नरेंद्रन और न्यायमूर्ति हरिशंकर वी. मेनन की खंडपीठ द्वारा पारित किया गया
projet de traité négocié à Istanbul (anglais).pdfEdouardHusson
Ceci est le projet de traité qui avait été négocié entre Russes et Ukrainiens à Istanbul en mars 2022, avant que les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ne détournent Kiev de signer.
Why We Chose ScyllaDB over DynamoDB for "User Watch Status"ScyllaDB
Yichen Wei and Adam Drennan share the architecture and technical requirements behind "user watch status" for a major global media streaming service, what that meant for their database, the pros and cons of the many options they considered for replacing DynamoDB, why they ultimately chose ScyllaDB, and their lessons learned so far.
Christian persecution in Islamic countries has intensified, with alarming incidents of violence, discrimination, and intolerance. This article highlights recent attacks in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, exposing the multifaceted challenges faced by Christian communities. Despite the severity of these atrocities, the Western world's response remains muted due to political, economic, and social considerations. The urgent need for international intervention is underscored, emphasizing that without substantial support, the future of Christianity in these regions is at grave risk.
https://ecspe.org/the-rise-of-christian-persecution-in-islamic-countries/
12062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Federal Authorities Urge Vigilance Amid Bird Flu Outbreak | The Lifesciences ...The Lifesciences Magazine
Federal authorities have advised the public to remain vigilant but calm in response to the ongoing bird flu outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu.
18062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Slide deck with charts from our Digital News Report 2024, the most comprehensive exploration of news consumption habits around the world, based on survey data from more than 95,000 respondents across 47 countries.
ग्रेटर मुंबई के नगर आयुक्त को एक खुले पत्र में याचिका दायर कर 540 से अधिक मुंबईकरों ने सभी अवैध और अस्थिर होर्डिंग्स, साइनबोर्ड और इलेक्ट्रिक साइनेज को तत्काल हटाने और 13 मई, 2024 की शाम को घाटकोपर में अवैध होर्डिंग के गिरने की विनाशकारी घटना के बाद अपराधियों के खिलाफ सख्त कार्रवाई की मांग की है, जिसमें 17 लोगों की जान चली गई और कई निर्दोष लोग गंभीर रूप से घायल हो गए।
16062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
17062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Recent years have seen a disturbing rise in violence, discrimination, and intolerance against Christian communities in various Islamic countries. This multifaceted challenge, deeply rooted in historical, social, and political animosities, demands urgent attention. Despite the escalating persecution, substantial support from the Western world remains lacking.
Shark Tank Jargon | Operational ProfitabilityTheUnitedIndian
Don't let fancy business words confuse you! This blog is your cheat sheet to understanding the Shark Tank Jargon. We'll translate all the confusing terms like "valuation" (how much the company is worth) and "royalty" (a fee for using someone's idea). You'll be swimming with the Sharks like a pro in no time!
2. Chairmen G. William Hoagland The Honorable Alan K. Simpson
Former Staff Director, Senate Budget Committee Former Member of Congress
The Honorable Bill Frenzel Former Co-Chair, National Commission on Fiscal
Former Ranking Member, House Budget Committee The Honorable James Jones Responsibility and Reform
Former Chairman, House Budget Committee
The Honorable Jim Nussle The Honorable John Spratt
Former Director, Office of Management and Budget Lou Kerr Former Chairman, House Budget Committee
Former Chairman, House Budget Committee President and Chair, The Kerr Foundation, Inc.
C. Eugene Steuerle
The Honorable Tim Penny The Honorable Jim Kolbe Fellow and Richard B. Fisher Chair, The Urban Institute
Former Member of Congress Former Member of Congress
The Honorable David Stockman
The Honorable Charlie Stenholm The Honorable James McIntyre, Jr. Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
Former Member of Congress Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
The Honorable John Tanner
The Honorable David Minge Former Member of Congress
President Former Member of Congress
The Honorable Laura D. Tyson
Maya MacGuineas June O’Neill Former Chairwoman, Council of Economic Advisors
President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Former Director, Congressional Budget Office Former Director, National Economic Council
The Honorable Paul O’Neill The Honorable George Voinovich
Directors Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Former Member of Congress
Barry Anderson Marne Obernauer, Jr. The Honorable Paul Volcker
Chairman, Beverage Distributors Company Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
Former Acting Director, Congressional Budget Office
Erskine Bowles Rudolph G. Penner Carol Cox Wait
Former Director, Congressional Budget Office Former President, Committee for a Responsible Federal
Former Chief of Staff to the President of the United States
Former Co-Chair, National Commission on Fiscal Budget
The Honorable Peter G. Peterson
Responsibility and Reform Founder and Chairman, Peter G. Peterson Foundation The Honorable David M. Walker
The Honorable Charles Bowsher Former Comptroller General of the United States
Robert Reischauer
Former Comptroller General of the United States Former Director, Congressional Budget Office The Honorable Joseph Wright, Jr.
Steve Coll Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
The Honorable Alice Rivlin
President, New America Foundation Former Director, Congressional Budget Office
Dan Crippen Former Director, Office of Management and Budget Senior Advisor
Former Director, Congressional Budget Office The Honorable Charles Robb The Honorable Robert Strauss
Former Member of Congress Former Chairman, Democratic National Committee
The Honorable Vic Fazio
Former Member of Congress Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union
The Honorable Martin Sabo
The Honorable Willis Gradison Former Chairman, House Budget Committee
Former Ranking Member, House Budget Committee
The Honorable William H. Gray, III
Former Chairman, House Budget Committee
About
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a bipartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public about issues that have
significant fiscal policy impact. The Committee is made up of some of the nation’s leading budget experts including many of the past Chairmen and
Directors of the Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office,
and the Federal Reserve Board.
New America Foundation
Since 2003, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has been housed at the New America Foundation. New America is an independent, non-
partisan, non-profit public policy institute that brings exceptionally promising new voices and new ideas to the fore of our nation’s public discourse.
Relying on a venture capital approach, the Foundation invests in outstanding individuals and policy ideas that transcend the conventional political
spectrum. New America sponsors a wide range of research, published writing, conferences and events on the most important issues of our time.
3. Understanding Dynamic
Scoring
Executive Summary
Conventional methods for estimating the budgetary impact of legislative proposals take into account
certain behavioral changes but not the impact of policy changes on the overall economy, nor the secondary
“feedback effects” which occur as a result. The process of incorporating these effects into a budget score is
referred to as dynamic scoring.
Dynamic scoring began to receive more attention in the mid-1990s as lawmakers sought to improve the
transparency of budget estimating, and increasingly so after 1997, when the chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee could request dynamic estimates for informational purposes. Dynamic scoring has
continued to be a topic of debate as a potential addition into the official scoring process. There are important
arguments made both in support of dynamic scoring and against it.
Arguments for dynamic scoring include:
1. Dynamic scoring provides valuable information omitted from conventional scores
2. Conventional estimates create a bias against pro-growth policies by disregarding economic effects
3. Policymakers should take advantage of better technology and information
Arguments against dynamic scoring include:
1. Dynamic scoring is very sensitive to assumptions
2. Dynamic scoring requires making assumptions about future policy changes
3. Dynamic scoring could impose impractical additional workload with only marginal changes in outcomes
4. Dynamic scoring could undermine estimators’ credibility
Ideally, economists and budget estimating agencies would fully understand exactly how every change in
policy would pan out and how it would affect the economy and the federal budget. Unfortunately, expert
consensus has yet to develop around a common set of assumptions required to perform such dynamic
analyses.
However, the state of technology and experts’ level of understanding of the economy has progressed
significantly since official estimating methods were adopted decades ago. As a general rule, it is better
for policymakers to have more information as opposed to less when weighing the merits of a proposal.
At various times in the past, both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) have produced dynamic analyses, with ranges of estimates, on illustrative proposals and
major legislation.
There are significant challenges to making dynamic scoring an official part of the budget estimating process.
Whether or not dynamic scoring is adopted, lawmakers should always be mindful of the economic effects
of proposals, and should seek out pro-growth reforms whenever possible. With conventional scoring in
place, lawmakers can consider dynamic gains a “bonus” to help further reduce the deficit and put the debt
on a sustainable path.
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 1
4. May 2012
Understanding Dynamic Scoring
In today’s political and economic environment, policymakers often discuss how certain proposals would
foster or stunt economic growth and job creation. Such dynamic effects, though frequently cited, are not
incorporated into official budgetary scoring from agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Over the years, many experts and politicians have discussed
the possibility of incorporating these effects into official scores – a process referred to as dynamic scoring.
Dynamic scoring, or more precisely macro-dynamic scoring, seeks to estimate the effects of proposed policy
changes on macroeconomic variables such as gross domestic product (GDP), inflation, interest rates, and
employment, and then to estimate how such effects would change federal revenues and spending levels.
Issues related to dynamic scoring have been the subject of many academic studies and high-level government
debates. Understanding how it works, what its advantages and disadvantages are, and what it can and
cannot do is important as policymakers consider its adoption.
Theoretically, dynamic scoring would offer policymakers better and more accurate budgetary information.
In practice, however, there are a number of drawbacks about the validity, the sheer number of assumptions
required, and the institutional challenges that merit proceeding slowly with any changes to scoring
conventions. Regardless, it is generally better to have more information rather than less, and incorporating
some dynamic analysis when appropriate could supplement conventional cost estimates.
This primer explains dynamic scoring and its relevance to the country’s current and future fiscal challenges.
How Do Estimators Currently
Score Bills?
Some proponents of dynamic scoring have mistakenly contended that revenue estimators use a “static
scoring” methodology that fails to take into account any behavioral responses to a policy change. In fact,
conventional scoring methods incorporate a wide variety of behavioral responses and thus would more
accurately be described as “micro-dynamic scoring.”
Understanding the difference between static, micro-dynamic, and macro-dynamic scoring requires an
explanation of how estimates are currently made.
Calculating the score of a tax change, for example, requires two basic pieces of information: the proposed
change in the tax rate and the resulting change in the quantity of what is being taxed, or the tax base. A
purely static estimate looks only at the change in the rate.
Imagine a proposal to increase the federal gas tax from 18.4 cents per gallon to 25.0 cents per gallon. A
static estimate would simply multiply the new tax rate by the number of gallons of gasoline projected to be
sold under the old tax rate. A conventional micro-dynamic score, on the other hand, would also take into
account the offsetting loss as individuals carpooled more, drove less, and/or bought more fuel-efficient cars
2 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
5. May 2012
in response to the higher gas price, and therefore purchased fewer gallons of gasoline than under the old
tax rate.
The types of behavior estimated under conventional scoring include effects related to the timing of economic
activity, shifting of income between taxable and nontaxable categories, effects on supply and demand, and
interactions with other taxes. For example, an estimate for a future increase in the capital gains tax will
account for the fact that taxpayers will accelerate their realization of gains into the year prior to the tax
increase to avoid the higher tax rate, and will also assume that future taxpayers will sell their assets less
often and hold more assets until death. Estimates of lower income tax rates, as another example, would
show an increased tax base as people are enticed to shift more compensation from nontaxable benefits, such
as employer provided health care and retirement plans, to taxable wages.
Estimates of spending programs also take microeconomic effects into account, such as expected changes
in participation, utilization, or reported income. For example, when CBO estimates the effect of changes
to Medicare cost-sharing rules (such as higher copayments), they take into account changes in health care
utilization (such as fewer visits to the doctor). Similarly, CBO’s estimates for agriculture legislation include
anticipated effects on crop prices and production.
While estimates already take into account these micro-dynamic behavioral changes, they do not take into
account potential changes to the economy as a whole.
For example, lower individual tax rates might not only encourage less tax evasion but also might increase
the labor supply and therefore the size of the economy. Similarly on the spending side, investments in
infrastructure projects or education might generate greater economic activity down the road by bringing
people and markets closer together or by increasing economic productivity. Even though a larger economy
would lead to more revenue, these effects are not accounted for under conventional scoring.
FIG 1. Definition of Terms
Dynamic – Characterized by constant change, activity, or progress; relating to forces producing mo-
tion. Often contrasted with static. Dynamic scoring or dynamic analysis involves the use of macroeco-
nomic models to predict economic responses, such as the level of employment and interest rates, to
changes in tax or spending policy and then counting the costs or savings associated with those “feed-
back effects” as part of the official estimate of the cost or savings associated with the policy change.
Static – Having no motion, action, or change; concerned with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium.
Often contrasted with dynamic. Current practices at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) produce cost estimates that many people mistakenly think are static
but that actually include behavioral responses to policy changes, as discussed in previous sections.
Dynamic analysis – A practice where economists evaluate and report on the probable economic ef-
fects of policy changes. Government entities (such as the Treasury Department and the JCT), nonprofit
organizations, and academics produce dynamic analyses. Dynamic analyses almost always present a
range of possible economic effects of a policy change.
Dynamic scoring - A practice where government scorers evaluate the probable economic effects of
policy changes and attribute the resulting budgetary impact of those economic changes to the official
budget estimate of the policy.
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 3
6. May 2012
History of Dynamic Scoring
in Congress
In 1995, at the start of the 104th Congress, many lawmakers thought that the revenue and spending
estimating processes were too secretive and not open to public review or evaluation. As one of the first
actions of the new Republican majority, on January 10, 1995 the House and Senate Budget Committees held
a joint hearing titled “Review of Congressional Budget Cost Estimating.”
Expert witnesses presented testimony and answered questions about dynamic and static scoring, as well
as the current state of the art regarding modeling macroeconomic feedback effects. In January 1997, at the
beginning of the 105th Congress (again under a Republican majority), the House first adopted a rule that
stated the Ways and Means Committee chairman could request dynamic scoring estimates, which would
be used for informational purposes only.1
The House kept the rule in place until the beginning of the 108th Congress in early 2003. At that time, the
Republican majority replaced the rule that authorized the Ways and Means chairman to request a dynamic
estimate with a rule that required the JCT to prepare a macroeconomic impact analysis where possible for
legislation reported by the Ways and Means Committee.2 The 2003 rule defined “macroeconomic impact
analysis” as an estimate of expected changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and tax
revenues that would result from enactment of the proposal. Although this rule is often associated with
Republican House majorities, Democrats adopted rules packages retaining this requirement when they
took power in the 110th and 111th Congresses (2007-2010).
At various times, both political parties have argued that macroeconomic estimates could provide useful
information obscured by conventional estimates. For Republicans, dynamic scoring represented a way
to demonstrate the adverse impacts of higher taxes and the benefits of lower taxes. For Democrats, such
estimates became particularly important when making the case for jobs measures and stimulus packages to
help boost the economy during the economic downturn.
Though there is relatively broad agreement on the usefulness of macroeconomic analyses, there is substantial
disagreement over whether estimators should go further and provide macro-dynamic scores of budgetary
policies.
4 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
7. May 2012
Arguments in Favor of
Dynamic Scoring
Issues surrounding dynamic scoring have been the subject of a growing debate. Arguments in favor of
dynamic scoring include:
1. Dynamic Scoring Provides Valuable Information Omitted from Conventional Scores
As legislators make policy decisions, they should have the best available information at their fingertips.
By failing to take macroeconomic effects into consideration, one could argue, conventional scoring falls
short of this goal and as a result leads policymakers to make suboptimal decisions and enact (or not enact)
policies without a fully informed debate.
2. Conventional Estimates Create a Bias Against Pro-Growth Policies by Disregarding Economic
Effects
Ignoring macroeconomic effects on the budget biases the legislative process against certain tax and spending
changes by overstating the budgetary effect of some and understating that of others with more beneficial,
or less harmful, effects on the economy. For example, limiting the value of itemized deductions on income
above $250,000, on the one hand, and allowing the top two tax rates to increase from 33 and 35 percent to 36
and 39.6 percent, on the other, are estimated to raise similar amounts of revenue under conventional scoring.
However, economic theory suggests that the increase in tax rates will more negatively affect growth and
therefore raise less revenue in reality. Dynamic scoring would reflect that reality and would provide more
complete information to those deciding between the two policies.
3. Policymakers Should Take Advantage of Better Technology and Information
Scoring procedures have changed little since the Congressional Budget Act and CBO were established
in 1974, while over the same period computing technology and economic analysis and modeling have
greatly advanced. The Treasury Department, CBO, and JCT as well as numerous academic sources have
devoted significant time and research to studying macroeconomic responses to government policy changes.
Sophisticated economic models have been developed to measure those responses, and many argue that
scoring procedures that were appropriate in the 1970s need to be updated to take advantage of the advances
that have been made.
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 5
8. May 2012
Arguments Against
Dynamic Scoring
Although scoring practitioners and experts generally acknowledge the importance of understanding
macroeconomic effects, many argue that conceptual, political, and logistical hurdles make dynamic scoring
difficult and unwise in practice. Among their arguments are:
1. Dynamic Scoring Is Very Sensitive to Assumptions
Economic analysis, and specifically macroeconomic analysis, is based on models that produce a range of
results. While budget estimators are able to make reasonable assumptions about microeconomic behavioral
responses using past evidence, the same cannot be said about overall economic effects. Macroeconomic
variables such as GDP and inflation are the result of numerous and often competing changes in fiscal
policy, monetary policy, and unrelated domestic and international factors. Trying to isolate and measure a
single factor or policy is quite difficult.
Instead of estimating based on empirical evidence, therefore, scoring agencies typically rely on theory-
based models – with different models incorporating very different assumptions. For example, in 2005, a
CBO issue brief found that a ten percent reduction in tax rates could shrink the size of the economy by 0.1
percentage points, grow it by 1.1 percentage points, or reach any number of other outcomes in between.
That same study found that dynamic effects could increase the cost of the tax cut by three percent ($33
billion) over ten years, reduce it by 28 percent ($345 billion), or have an effect in between.3
2. Dynamic Scoring Requires Making Assumptions About Future Policy Changes
Under normal scoring conventions, estimators do not attempt to guess at future Congressional action.
In other words, estimators attempt to measure the effects of current law – including how individuals,
businesses, states, and agencies will behave based on policies in law – but do not attempt to project how future
Congresses may or may not change current law. This scoring practice is important because policymakers
want to know how much their particular proposal will cost or save on its own, not what effect it will have
when combined with some unknown and arbitrarily decided future set of policies. However, dynamic
scoring must often break from this practice for deficit-increasing measures since most macroeconomic
models assume debt must eventually be financed in order for the economy to continue to operate. To that
effect, many macroeconomic models will assume that future tax increases or spending cuts are enacted in
order to stabilize public debt levels.
If scoring agencies were to implement dynamic scoring, they would not only need to break with the
convention of not predicting future policy, but they might have to make a single assumption about how
a policy change is financed, be it through a future tax increase, a spending cut, a combination of the two,
additional borrowing, monetization of the debt, or other means. There has always been widespread
reluctance on the part of budget estimators to predict what future policymakers will do.
6 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
9. may 2012
3. Dynamic Scoring Could Impose Impractical Additional Workload with Only Marginal
Changes in Outcomes
Under current scoring practices, all JCT and CBO analysts work from the same baseline economic
assumptions. Generally, these baseline economic assumptions are updated twice per year. If dynamic
scoring is adopted, the baseline economic assumptions would have to be updated for each piece of legislation
passed, requiring a substantial increase in time and resources for producing cost estimates and requiring
much closer alignment of JCT and CBO. Specifically, analysts may be working on different proposals
simultaneously, all changing macroeconomic variables at will and using inconsistent assumptions without
the full knowledge of anyone in authority. The resulting coordination concerns could damage the findings
and credibility of dynamic analyses for each proposal, the reverse of what dynamic scoring proponents
intend.
Such additional workload might be considered a necessary evil if the resulting dynamic estimates were
orders of magnitude or directionally different from conventional scores, but according to many experts
dynamic scoring tends to yield results which are not all that different from current scoring practices.4
Dynamic estimates from the George W. Bush Administration’s own Mid-Session Review for permanently
extending the tax cuts, for example, found that they would cost only about ten percent less than the
conventional cost estimates.5 In the next section, this analysis will review several recent dynamic analyses.
4. Dynamic Scoring Could Undermine Estimators’ Credibility
CBO and JCT strive for unbiased, nonpartisan analysis and have as a result earned widespread credibility
over the years. Both organizations are willing to explain and defend their estimating processes. If they
undertake dynamic scoring, they will be forced to make choices about future policies and about which
macroeconomic model’s output to use. Since there is no broad consensus about the ideal macroeconomic
model, both organizations would be subject to criticism about favoring one outcome over another.
According to John Buckley, former Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff, “if there is even a perception
of political interference in the budget scoring process, market analysts will question the accuracy of the estimate. The
CBO and JCT may lose their hard-won credibility as scorekeepers.”6
Results of Recent Dynamic
Analyses
Advocates of dynamic scoring often contend that the policies they support include substantial economic
feedback, leading to budgetary outcomes drastically different from conventional scores. Some have gone so
far as to suggest that certain deficit-increasing tax cuts or spending increases will fully pay for themselves
through subsequent effects on economic growth.
In reality, when CBO and JCT have responded to Congress’s request for macroeconomic analyses, they have
generally found mostly modest (though certainly not insignificant) macro-dynamic effects. The example of
the ten percent reduction in rates, for example, shows that a tax cut that is conventionally scored as increasing
the deficit by nearly $1.56 trillion over ten years would increase the deficit by somewhere between $1.21
trillion and $1.59 trillion using dynamic scoring.7 CBO and JCT have undertaken other macroeconomic
analyses over the years with the following results:
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 7
10. May 2012
Corporate Tax Cuts. In 2005, JCT evaluated the effect of a $500 billion (over ten years) corporate tax rate cut.
They found the tax cut would increase the return on corporate investment – providing more incentives for
investment and thus goods and services produced, boosting output, wages, and the capital stock – thereby
increasing real GDP by between 0.1 and 0.4 percentage points ($120 billion and $285 billion) in the second
five years. Those economic gains would generate between $42 billion and $105 billion of revenue from
dynamic feedback over ten years compared to the conventional estimates.8
FIG 2. Understanding a Dynamic Budget Estimate
Although typically CBO and JCT will at most produce a dynamic analysis showing average economic
impact over five and ten years with various models, one report in 2011 shows what a full dynamic
score might look like. Specifically, in that report, CBO shows the effects of a generic $2 trillion deficit
reduction plan.
Under conventional scoring methods, such a plan would save about $101 billion in 2012 and $2.42 tril-
lion through 2021 – including $419 billion of interest savings as a result of lower debt levels. CBO finds
the plan could reduce gross national product (GNP) by between 0.3 and 0.6 percent in the first year,
increase it by between 0.6 and 1.4 percent in the tenth year, and reduce interest rates by anywhere from
0.05 points and 0.55 points depending on the year, model, and length of bond maturity.
Assuming the plan had a medium-sized effect on GNP, revenues would fall (and to a lesser extent,
spending would rise) in the early years and rise in the later years – adding about $20 billion of addi-
tional deficit reduction over the ten year period and far more over the long-term. Assuming a medium
effect on interest rates, lower interest payments would result in $165 billion of further deficit reduction.
Bridge from a Conventional Estimate to a Dynamic Estimate (Billions of Dollars)
Ten-
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year
Primary Savings $100 $122 $144 $167 $189 $211 $233 $256 $278 $300 $2,000
Interest Savings $1 $5 $10 $18 $28 $40 $54 $70 $87 $106 $419
Conventional
$101 $127 $154 $185 $217 $252 $288 $325 $365 $406 $2,419
Savings
GNP Effects -$10 -$15 -$12 -$7 $0 $6 $9 $12 $16 $21 $20
Interest Rate Effects $7 $19 $20 $20 $18 $15 $16 $16 $17 $19 $165
Dynamic Savings $97 $130 $162 $197 $235 $272 $312 $354 $398 $446 $2,604
All told, in this particular example, CBO shows a dynamic estimate would reduce deficits by about
8.5 percent (over $200 billion) more than a convention estimate over ten years and 10 percent ($40
billion) more in the tenth year.
Source: CBO, “Macroeconomic Impact on an Illustrative $2.4 Trillion Debt Reduction Plan.” July 14, 2011. http://www.cbo.
gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12310/07-14-deficitreduction_forweb.pdf.
8 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
11. may 2012
Lower Rates and a Broader Base. In 2006, JCT analyzed the effect of eliminating most tax expenditures –
the various credits, deductions, and exclusions in the tax code – in order to finance a revenue neutral 23.5
percent reduction in income tax rates. JCT found that such a reform would provide additional incentives
for work and investment (other than real estate investment), and as a result would increase the size of the
real economy by 0.2 to 2.6 percent over the long-term.9
Stimulus. In 2009, CBO estimated the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA). The stimulus provided by this bill, they estimated, would increase aggregate demand and
therefore GDP by between 1.1 to 3.4 percent over the first two years and reduce unemployment by 0.6 to
1.9 percentage points. In later years, the debt resulting from the legislation would “crowd out” private
investment and thus slightly reduce the size of the economy in the latter half of the decade.10
Deficit Reduction. In 2011, CBO studied the impact of an illustrative $2 trillion deficit-reduction plan over
ten years, excluding interest savings. CBO found the plan would reduce the size of the economy by 0.3 to
0.6 percent in the first year by reducing aggregate demand. By the end of the decade, however, the deficit
reduction would increase cumulative output by 0.6 to 1.4 percent and reduce interest rates by 0.08 to 0.22
percent. CBO finds that feedback effects could lead to between $100 and $280 billion of additional deficit
reduction over ten years – largely due to lower interest costs.11
FIG 3. Recent Dynamic Analyses from CBO and JCT
Dynamic Analyses Small Effect Mean Effect Large Effect
Percent Change in GDP/GNP Over First Five Years
10% Individual Tax Rate Cut 0.2% 0.6% 0.8%
Lower Rates, Broaden Base 0.1% 0.8% 1.2%
$500 Billion Corporate Tax Cut 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
2009 Stimulus 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%
$2 Trillion of Deficit Reduction -0.1% -0.1% -0.2%
Percent Change in GDP/GNP Over Second Five Years
10% Individual Tax Rate Cut -0.1% 0.4% 1.1%
Lower Rates, Broaden Base 1.1% 1.5% 1.9%
$500 Billion Corporate Tax Cut 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%
2009 Stimulus -0.2% -0.1% 0.0%
$2 Trillion of Deficit Reduction 0.4% 0.8% 1.1%
Deficit Effect of GDP Changes Over Ten Years (Billions)
10% Individual Tax Rate Cut -$33 $207 $345
Lower Rates, Broaden Base N/A N/A N/A
$500 Billion Corporate Tax Cut ^
$42 $73 $107
2009 Stimulus N/A N/A N/A
$2 Trillion of Deficit Reduction $100 $185 $280
Note: Estimates for the 2009 stimulus act and the illustrative debt reduction plan from CBO, while the other estimates were from JCT. Estimates
are cumulative over the stated period.
^Estimate does not include interest savings.
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 9
12. May 2012
Conclusion
There are reasonable arguments both for and against dynamic scoring, and these pros and cons should be
weighed very carefully before any changes to scoring rules are adopted. There is no question that policymakers
should have access to as much information as possible. At the same time, however, congressional budget
analysts should not be required to produce results which they believe would compromise the technical
integrity of the work they do.
Moreover, if Congress does want to adopt dynamic scoring, it should be willing to live with the economic
model or models that CBO and JCT use – even if they disagree with the findings and believe economic gains
to be larger (or losses to be smaller). In other words, Congress should accept the results of staff economists
at CBO and JCT and should not game the system by prescribing methodologies that would compromise
the value of the results.
Importantly, policymakers should be pursuing pro-growth policies regardless of how they are accounted
for. In addition to having benefits in its own right, faster economic growth will lead to higher revenue,
lower spending on safety net programs, a greater capacity for individuals and businesses to bear tax and
spending changes, and a greater capacity of the economy as a whole to carry debt (i.e. higher GDP will
lower the debt-to-GDP ratio) – all of which can help the country address its fiscal challenges. Even if scorers
do not account for these effects directly, pro-growth policy changes can yield a bonus in the form of lower
than projected deficits and debt. Currently, we are faced with making painful choices that, unfortunately,
can no longer be avoided. Higher growth will not make painful choices go away, but it will make them
relatively less painful.
10 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
13. may 2012
Endnotes
1
Government Printing Office. Rules of the House of Representatives. Updated June 16, 2009. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg543.pdf.
2
Government Printing Office. Rules of the House of Representatives. Updated June 16, 2009.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-108/pdf/HMAN-108-pg602.pdf.
3
Congressional Budget Office. “Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates.” Dec. 1,
2005. http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10percenttaxcut.pdf.
4
Former CBO Director Rudolph Penner has stated that “the CBO’s dynamic analysis suggests that static scoring is usually pretty
accurate” (from Op-Ed in the Ripon Forum, “Dynamic Scoring: Not So Fast!” April 21, 2006). In addition, Jason Furman, currently
the Principal Deputy Director of the President’s National Economic Council, has also argued that dynamic cost estimates “are
reasonably close to conventional cost estimates (from Center on Budget and Policy Prioirities, “A Short Guide to Dynamic Scor-
ing,” August 24, 2006).
5
Jane Gravelle, Congressional Research Service, “Comments on the Treasury Dynamic Analysis of Extending the Tax Cuts.” July
27, 2006.
6
Buckley, John. “Dynamic Scoring: Will S&P Have Company?” Tax Analysts, February 28, 2012. http://www.taxanalysts.com/
www/features.nsf/Articles/43736B49FCB019E3852579B5006E1933?OpenDocument.
7
Congressional Budget Office. “Macroeconomic Analysis of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates.” May 2004. http://www.cbo.
gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/54xx/doc5485/2004-07.pdf.
8
Joint Committee on Taxation. “Macroeconomic Analysis of Various Proposals to Provide $500 Billion in Tax Relief.” March 1,
2005. http://www.jct.gov/x-4-05.pdf.
9
Joint Committee on Taxation. “Macroeconomic Analysis of a Proposal to Broaden the Individual Income Tax Base and Lower
Individual Income Tax Rates.” December 14, 2006. http://www.jct.gov/x-53-06.pdf.
10
Congressional Budget Office, “Macro Effects of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” March 2, 2009. http://cbo.gov/
sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-macro_effects_of_arra.pdf.
11
The plan reflected $2 trillion in direct savings and over $400 billion in interest savings for a total of $2.4 trillion. The analysis,
however, did not make any assumptions about the composition of the savings and only looked at the macroeconomic impact of
lower deficits and debt. (Congressional Budget Office. “The Macroeconomic and Budgetary Effects of an Illustrative Policy for
Reducing the Federal Budget Deficit” June 14, 2011. http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12310/07-14-defi-
citreduction_forweb.pdf.)
Understanding Dynamic Scoring 11