The editors of the Washington Post caution Senate Democrats:
EVERY FEW years, whichever party is running Congress encounters an obstacle: The nonpartisan scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). These professionals issue the official estimates on what major legislation would accomplish and how much it would cost, and they have a way of puncturing the narratives federal lawmakers construct to justify their policies. They tell Republicans that tax cuts are not likely to pay for themselves, and they tell Democrats that expanding government-subsidized health-care coverage may reduce the number of hours Americans work.
When majority lawmakers get a score they dislike, they and their ideological allies often try to work the refs — making their case to the CBO and JCT staff, or issuing statements challenging the estimates. Sometimes, and increasingly, they go further, threatening to eviscerate the scorekeepers’ independence. Mother Jones’s Kara Voght reported last week that Senate Democratic staffers are talking about firing CBO Director Phillip Swagel, after the CBO released an analysis projecting that increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would result in 1.4 million job losses over a decade. Staff on the Senate Budget Committee, which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) runs, have even sent Senate Democratic leaders a list of possible replacements. This is a terrible idea.
They don’t just want to “work the refs”. They want to replace the CBO director with someone who’ll give them the answer that they want:
The CBO also does not get everything right. Its experts provide highly educated guesses. Sometimes this helps Democrats, as when the CBO concluded that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit. Sometimes it hurts their case, as it did on the minimum wage. CBO estimates force caution on those who have an interest in the numbers turning out a specific way, and its careful approach means that both parties’ legislation is measured against the same yardstick over time. It cannot perform either function if each passing congressional majority stacks the CBO in its favor.
The difference between an expert and an “expert” in this particular case is that an expert provides an unbiased assessment of the consequences of a policy change. Not a perfect assessment but a professional one. An “expert”, regardless of credentials, is someone who give you the answer that you want. Replacing experts with “experts” will temporarily provide political cover but it also cast doubt on every expert. Short term benefit and long term cost.
If the Congress wants someone to rubberstamp their policy judgments, why bother? They should have the courage to defend their own actions.
