Rich Neal: “The previous speaker said: How could a group be so far off in their analysis? Well, they were that far off with the Bush…”

“The previous speaker said: How could a group be so far off in their analysis? Well, they were that far off with the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Alan Greenspan was certainly off. In his commentary about economic growth, we had the slowest growth since Herbert Hoover was President, based upon $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. So this is analysis. It is an economic forecast. It is not an algorithm. When you pick up the computer, you push a button, and all of a sudden you get a score. I am in opposition to this amendment because they play a vital role every single day, even when they are not entirely accurate, in keeping a scorecard. Members and staff on both sides, particularly at the Ways and Means Committee, rely much upon their hardworking and nonpartisan analysis for what they do every day. I have never, in 29 years in this House, said to a member of CBO: Are you a Republican or are you a Democrat? When we demean professional achievement from economists who try and strive every single day to come up with an accurate forecast, we do this institution no good. We should have a high regard for what these people do every single day--and let me say this, by the way, more accurate than the Office of Management and Budget, in my recollection, who work for Presidents and who, generally, didn't come up with forecasts that Presidents might or might not like. The CBO is an independent agency and we need to keep it here. Congress could not do its work without the CBO.…”