- Kathleen Matthews Joins Race for Van Hollen's Seat
- Let Voters Judge Early Ads
- Kelly Wins Runoff for Mississippi House Seat
- DNC's Mo Elleithee Leaving Politics for Georgetown
- Rematches Invite 'Retread' Label, Familiar Themes
Supporters of the health care bill were ecstatic over the finding of the Congressional Budget Office, released last week, that the federal budget deficit will come in lower over the next 10 years should the bill become law. When news of the CBO forecast came in over the airwaves, invariably the reports noted that the CBO is a nonpartisan institution.
Its funny that public radio and the mainstream newspapers have a reflex making them call CBO nonpartisan, because a little knowledge of the CBOs founding and history would dispel this myth right away. The CBO began life in 1974, the year Watergate forced Richard Nixon to resign in other words, in one of the most partisan years in American political history. The CBO owes its existence to the baldly partisan environment of that year.
The Democrats had a big majority in Congress at the time but found that Nixon had proven adept at nixing their pet spending initiatives. Nixon would impound funds that Congress had authorized to spend on this and that pet project, and the money would go unspent. Infuriated, the Democrats revised the entire budget process just to make it impossible for the president to proceed in this manner. With the 1974 budget reform, the piecemeal appropriations process of the past was scrapped. Now only two budget resolutions would be passed every year, each one accounting for large portions of the aggregate federal budget. If the president wanted to impound funds, he would have to put the whole resolution in escrow. That was unthinkable, so the Democrats were assured of every drop of their pork.
The CBO was invented during all this to score the mammoth budget resolutions that were to emerge from this process. One of the reasons was as follows. If the CBO projected deficits from a resolution, the new budget regimen would make it impossible to nix spending on a case-by-case basis which, after all, is the easiest way to cut spending. Therefore, it would become all the more imperative to raise taxes, as well as to resist the calls for tax cuts that were beginning to be heard from up-and-coming Representatives such as Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.).
All this is to say that the CBO was devised by a historically partisan Democratic majority in the service of forestalling an up-and-coming idea from the downtrodden opposition: tax cuts. And sure enough, in its first years, the CBO proved a loyal fighter in the service of the Democratic status quo. When Republicans proposed a 5 percent cut in income tax rates in late 1976, the CBO found that the tax cut would result in a 4 percent increase in economic growth along with a 14 percent drop in federal revenues. Members of the budget committee were left scratching their heads as to how a 5 percent tax cut that caused good growth led to a decrease in federal revenues nearly three times the magnitude of the tax cut.