Comments on: Politicized Prognostication at the Congressional Budget Office

By: humble law student

humble law student — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:16:04 +0000

Frank,

Read any of her stuff or watch her appearances on TV. She decries anyone or anything who stands in the way of the public option.

The CBO is emerging as one of the biggest thorns in the side of partisans like Maggie. So, naturally, they seek to discredit it.

Of course in your world, the general Dem./Lib. stance on healthcare is the only rational one, so how people that promote that position possibly be partisan? After all truth isn’t partisan, right?

By: A.W.

A.W. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:27:33 +0000

this is too hilarious. yes, yes, this is the problem. the democrat controlled congress can’t control… congress.

really if this is true, then they should lose power for just being incompetant.

By: K

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:41:39 +0000

Despite its considerable expertise, CBO doesn’t function primarily as a scientific institution. It serves a political function. Political actors are unlikely ever to concert a common view of the appropriate methodology for cost estimates precisely because their interests are political, not epistemic. And yet some sort of numbers are required in the legislative process. CBO estimates aren’t final because they’re infalliable, they’re infallible because they’re final.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:55:00 +0000

From the politico:

> Dems search for villains amid delays

> With their health care plans in a holding pattern — and no George W. Bush to kick around anymore — Democrats are casting about for somebody to blame.

> House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn says that Republicans have “perfected ‘just say no.’” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said insurance companies are chalking up “immoral profits.”

> But even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly, most Democrats in Congress know the truth: It’s their own colleagues who are slowing down progress in both the House and the Senate.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BEAE4AE2-18FE-70B2-A8DE8F36E82705CC

Funny, that this is the story reported yesterday and only one day later, Concurring Opinions has found the villains the democrats need! The CBO! Gee, how could democrats, who control a majority in congress, ever control the congressional budget office?

By the way, the proper word isn’t villain; it’s “scapegoat.”

By: A.W.

A.W. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:08:21 +0000

This is kind of pathetic. The democrats control both houses of congress, and therefore can pick a CBO they want. But they, and their sycophants in the blogosphere, are acting as if they were hand picked by Dick Cheney. You wanted the dems to control the government and you got it, but that means now you have no one to blame for anything that goes wrong but yourselves.

The real problem is that Obama and his congressional allies are telling a fairy tale. It all doesn’t add up. And when a Democratic congress can’t even get its own CBO to play along, well then its time for you to go back to the drawing board.

But, wait, it’s the messenger’s fault! Kill him! *rolls eyes*

Charles Krauthammer tells us why the public is against this plan better than this silly post. http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=7eaa61c0-85ec-4820-93f4-5d306bbe94fb&t=c

By the way, when democrats decide they don’t even need to read what they are voting for, that is kind of a problem, too. To quote Mark Steyn’s characteristically withering words: “Thousand-page bills, unread and indeed unwritten at the time of passage, are the death of representative government.”

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:25:15 +0000

Any example of Mahar’s partisanship you care to share?

By: humble law student

humble law student — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:59:19 +0000

You write, \”When respected experts like Maggie Mahar are wondering if Elmendorf has understood key literature in the area, something’s gone wrong at CBO.\”

Pretty lame appeal to authority, especially because Ms. Mahar is not a neutral expert but is decidedly partisan in the health care debate.