On the recordApril 4, 2014
Well, I thank my colleague for his kind words, but I think he is actually missing the point. The dynamic scoring, in fact, does allow you to assess the employment impact, and, obviously, we think it does that through a tainted lens because such analysis will be subjective and uncertain, and we have made the arguments about dynamic scoring. But it doesn't impact that at all. That remains in the bill. This simply adds a provision that would require an analysis be done under the traditional methods that the CBO uses. It will ensure that CBO conducts the same kind of analysis of jobs impact when using the static method currently used by CBO. And we can and should do both. The fact of the matter is this is an opportunity to be sure that we have as much information as possible about the impact of actions that we take on job creation, on the ability to sustain or cost jobs. In fact, providing this amendment will only ensure that that analysis happens in both places. You have recognized in the underlying bill that jobs impact matters-- we agree--but let's not limit that information. Let's be sure there is a jobs impact both in the static analysis that is done by CBO as well as in your new provision for dynamic scoring. Let's have an assessment in both of those side by side. It will provide a full picture of the potential range of likely employment effects in our communities.…





