According to Robert Reich, former Clinton Secretary of Labor and current professor at U.C. Berkley, at the top of the "to do" list for the Republican controlled congress will be to fire Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf because he won't use "dynamic scoring" for his economic projections.
Dynamic scoring is the magical-mystery math Republicans have been pushing since they came up with supply-side "trickle-down" economics.
It's based on the belief that cutting taxes unleashes economic growth and thereby produces additional government revenue. Supposedly the added revenue more than makes up for what's lost when Congress hands out the tax cuts.
Dynamic scoring would make it easier to enact tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, because the tax cuts wouldn't look as if they increased the budget deficit.
As explained by
Forbes the new "dynamic scoring"
would require the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to incorporate macroeconomic effects of “major” legislation into their official budget estimates.
Further they make three points:
•The new rules would not require dynamic scoring for all bills. They would only apply to “major legislation,” which is defined as having annual budgetary effects of at least 0.25 percent of Gross Domestic Product. At current GDP levels, that’s about $45 billion (though the rules would allow exceptions). Appropriation bills are excluded. Ryan says just three bills considered in the last Congress would have been scored under these rules.
•JCT and CBO are asked to produce a “qualitative” assessment of macroeconomic effects “to the extent practicable.” CBO and JCT don’t normally use only “qualitative” analysis to score legislation, and it is tough to imagine how such an assessment could lead to an accurate budget score. And it is impossible to know how the phrase “to the extent practicable” will be interpreted.
•The rules will require macroeconomic analysis over 20 years, double the traditional 10-year budget window. On one hand, this may limit some of the gaming that lawmakers use to make tax law changes look like they raise more money than they really do. On the other, any estimate of how any tax change will affect the economy over 20 years would be highly uncertain at best.
The bolding is mine.
This does not read like a ringing endorsement of dynamic scoring from even the highly conservative Forbes Magazine.
We saw what kind of havoc these policies wrecked upon the economy back in 1929, just before The Great Depression, and in the 2000's leading up to The Great Recession, and more recently in Kansas with Governor Brownback's "trickle-down" eutopia. It never has worked and it never will. We know it is not the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, it is the Koch Brothers.
Reich forcefully argues the case against trickle-down and dynamic scoring.
Few economic theories have been as thoroughly tested in the real world as supply-side economics, and so notoriously failed.
Ronald Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and ended up nearly doubling the national debt. His first budget director, David Stockman, later confessed he dealt with embarrassing questions about future deficits with "magic asterisks" in the budgets submitted to Congress. The Congressional Budget Office didn't buy them.
George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton but then slashed taxes, mostly on the rich. The CBO found that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenues by $3 trillion.
Why is "Reaganomics" still a thing? Why is Elmendorf on his way out? Because Republicans only trust people and the reports they produce who agree with their view of the world. That is why they only watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Their undying devotion to tax cuts and economic Darwinism is equivalent to the magical thinking of Christian Fundamentalists. When your whole belief system starts with a leap of faith then transferring that leap of faith to economic policy is easy. All you have to do is ignore the facts.
Climate change? It's not happening, they say. And even if it is happening, humans aren't responsible. (Almost all scientists studying the issue find it's occurring and humans are the major cause.)
Widening inequality? Not occurring, they say. Even though the data show otherwise, they claim the measurements are wrong.
Voting fraud? Happening all over the country, they say, which is why voter IDs and other limits on voting are necessary. Even though there's no evidence to back up their claim (the best evidence shows no more than 31 credible incidents of fraud out of a billion ballots cast), they continue to assert it.
Evolution? Just a theory, they say. Even though all reputable scientists support it, many Republicans at the state level say it shouldn't be taught without also presenting the view found in the Bible.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? America's use of torture? The George W. Bush administration and its allies in Congress weren't overly interested in the facts.
This is why Elmendorf has to go. He relies too much on facts. Once he is gone Republicans will just need to find someone who will play ball. I'm sure the Kochs can suggest a suitable candidate.