Well it’s nice to know I have company.
Last month, I wrote a post about how I wondered how much the predictions of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could be trusted. For examples, I used thier predictions about budgest surpluses and deficits over the years and matched them to what really happened. No surprise, but the projections of the CBO were seriously off-base.
I was glad to see in the March 19 edition of The Washington Post an op-ed column by Ruth Marcus, entitled “Score One for Skepticism” where she also questions the CBO predictive abilities in terms of thier scoring of the health-care reform bill that recently passed.
In her column, she gives a good explanation as to why the CBO may be wrong about their prediction that the bill would save $138 billion over the next 10 years:
And here is the accompanying tablespoon of salt: The CBO is required to assume that Congress will do what it promises. So, for example, Congress promises in the measure to cut several hundred billion dollars in Medicare spending.
Because of politics and contributors, Congress rarely does what it promises.
Marcus finishes with:
I hope that the CBO’s projections prove correct. I wouldn’t bank – or base my vote – on it.
So really, maybe the CBO isn’t to blame for their poor track record. Maybe the fault, dear reader, lies not in the CBO, but in our representatives…who are elected by us.