Chuck Grassley: “Under Chairman Conrad's methodology, one of two conclusions is apparent from this exercise. One, if tax cuts and new…”

“Under Chairman Conrad's methodology, one of two conclusions is apparent from this exercise. One, if tax cuts and new spending are treated similarly, then under Chairman Conrad's methodology, the Democratic caucus package is $350 billion bigger than the Republican caucus package. That is a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of new spending. Alternatively, maybe Senator Conrad is arguing that in scoring there should be a bias against tax cuts and in favor of new spending by assuming that new spending is temporary. Since a key element of the budgeteers' principles was long-term budget effect, you would think Senator Conrad would have more carefully considered the 10-year cost of new appropriations and new entitlements. It seems to me he graded these plans long before he analyzed them. How else can Senator Conrad explain the laxity of the long-term spending effect? Adding new appropriations and new entitlement spending to the budget, even if labeled temporary, brings a long-term budget cost. Otherwise, we are trying to kid people. When was the last time we cut the appropriations baseline or a new entitlement? It doesn't happen around here. Now keep in mind that I have also asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to score the permanent effect of temporary tax cuts in each plan, but I do not have that analysis yet. I have had my staff work on it. They tell me it might narrow the gap some but would simply add to the total 10-year cost of each plan.”