Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Is it more realistic that Congress will make further tax cuts on top of the current law, than leave the tax law as it stands?
The reason I ask is that the Barron's column (linked to by Ted) describes making more tax cuts as "CBO’s more realistic 'Alternative Fiscal Scenario'" It never actually tells you that by "alternative scenario" it is referring to more tax cuts. You have to read the CBO report directly and match up the numbers to figure that out. (See p. 1 of ch. 4 of the CBO report.)
Personally, I do not consider that a more realistic scenario, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that there are many ways to subtly introduce bias. How many people glossed over this description and not only took the "more realistic" description as factual, but never wondered what that alternative scenario was?
The "alternative fiscal scenario" discussed in the CBO report (which it never called more realistic) supposed that the tax cuts and spending increases scheduled to expire were continued. It's certainly true that some people considered this more realistic:
But that was then (when the tax bill was passed). This is now:
"House GOP pushes back plans to vote on making individual tax cuts permanent ... Republicans are worried about the optics of voting for potentially costly new tax cuts shortly after the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt will nearly equal the nation's GDP by 2028." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/house-gop-pushes-back-plans-to-vote-on-tax-reform-phase-2.html
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html
The reason I ask is that the Barron's column (linked to by Ted) describes making more tax cuts as "CBO’s more realistic 'Alternative Fiscal Scenario'" It never actually tells you that by "alternative scenario" it is referring to more tax cuts. You have to read the CBO report directly and match up the numbers to figure that out. (See p. 1 of ch. 4 of the CBO report.)
Personally, I do not consider that a more realistic scenario, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that there are many ways to subtly introduce bias. How many people glossed over this description and not only took the "more realistic" description as factual, but never wondered what that alternative scenario was?
The "alternative fiscal scenario" discussed in the CBO report (which it never called more realistic) supposed that the tax cuts and spending increases scheduled to expire were continued. It's certainly true that some people considered this more realistic:
"Republicans ... downplayed the impact of sunsetting the individual tax cuts, offering assurances that lawmakers in the future won’t allow them to go back up, at least not for the middle class. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/republicans-slap-an-expiration-date-on-middle-class-tax-cuts/545996/
But that was then (when the tax bill was passed). This is now:
"House GOP pushes back plans to vote on making individual tax cuts permanent ... Republicans are worried about the optics of voting for potentially costly new tax cuts shortly after the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt will nearly equal the nation's GDP by 2028."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/house-gop-pushes-back-plans-to-vote-on-tax-reform-phase-2.html
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17215440/deficits-rising-congressional-budget-office-ceo-debate