I owe the readers an update on my criticism of this bill and what I have learned from reading it and talking to people who live in this alien legislative world.
Best explanation I have seen of the reality of the bill.
Also good to point out what can and can't be done in a Reconciliation Bill. What MUST be done via an Appropriation bill. Finally, some of the angst is due to a lack of understanding about what CAN be done in a Rescission bill, the first of which has been sent up
Finally, I wish those on both sides of the issue (Republicans only, as Democrats will only lie) would lay out in detail their projections, with detailed assumptions, for us to review. If we can't deeply analyze the assumptions, we can't understand the bill.
Thank you. It's unusual for someone to so readily admit his mistakes. No one can keep up with everything, but many of us have been trying to make sure people understand that the CBO is a pack of weasels, appointed by Democrats, then re-confirmed 4 years later by Kevin McCarthy and Patty Murray. The left still controls most of the narrative, and is still able to fool a lot of conservatives.
You open your article with one fact most do not know - BBB is a reconciliation bill, and can only look at taxes, it can make no changes in anything that is not predicated on taxes. Thank you for clarifying this.
Your comments about the CBO - all true, by the way - aim directly at the source of the problem most of us have. The government uses offices like CBO to "forecast" enconomic impacts of particular actions, yet the CBO uses flawed logic and assumptions when it makes its "report." Your example of the Trump tax cuts highlights this perfectly.
As you point out, with the restrictions placed on BBB, it is incumbent on congress to pass the legislation needed to curb lower courts - John Roberts doesn't seem to have the "fire in the belly" to get this done, however congress does. There is precedent to this, as Thomas Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolished some federal district courts, and led to Stuart vs Laird, in which the Supreme Court affirmed Congress' authority to abolish courts and reassign judicial duties.
It's all there if the congress has the will to do the right thing. Unfortunately I believe congress is more interested their own reelection than in the good of the country. Quoting your article, " The BBB, for all its flaws, seems a necessary step. It’s not the whole fight, but it’s the one in front of us. Make up your own mind, but let’s focus on the right battles, armed with the right facts" with which I abolutley agree.
Though it is weird that the only time Democrats bemoan the national debt is when the GOP is the majority in both houses. Democrat-incurred debt, I suppose, is never a problem.
Good recap for us Michael. The damn if we do and damn if we don't is at best the choice between 2 evils. Only as you say, one evil is a lot slower to arrive, and with appropriate measures taken by the GOP in the meantime, we should be able to keep the ship afloat. And therein lies my concern. Do we have enough GOP leaders with cojones to do what is necessary? Time will tell. In the meantime, I am building my fallout shelter in a spot far away from any major city.
Well, it is neither simple or limited within the scope of the bill. It is actually sort of trashy and I would bet the Senate version will remove some of it.
Thank you. l've been ignoring the palaver promoted by Dems and MSM for all the reasons you outline. It has taken more than a generation to get into the mess our federal government is in -- I surmise the fix will require courage and sustained action to get back to Constitutional gov't.
Best explanation I have seen of the reality of the bill.
Also good to point out what can and can't be done in a Reconciliation Bill. What MUST be done via an Appropriation bill. Finally, some of the angst is due to a lack of understanding about what CAN be done in a Rescission bill, the first of which has been sent up
Finally, I wish those on both sides of the issue (Republicans only, as Democrats will only lie) would lay out in detail their projections, with detailed assumptions, for us to review. If we can't deeply analyze the assumptions, we can't understand the bill.
Thank you. It's unusual for someone to so readily admit his mistakes. No one can keep up with everything, but many of us have been trying to make sure people understand that the CBO is a pack of weasels, appointed by Democrats, then re-confirmed 4 years later by Kevin McCarthy and Patty Murray. The left still controls most of the narrative, and is still able to fool a lot of conservatives.
You open your article with one fact most do not know - BBB is a reconciliation bill, and can only look at taxes, it can make no changes in anything that is not predicated on taxes. Thank you for clarifying this.
Your comments about the CBO - all true, by the way - aim directly at the source of the problem most of us have. The government uses offices like CBO to "forecast" enconomic impacts of particular actions, yet the CBO uses flawed logic and assumptions when it makes its "report." Your example of the Trump tax cuts highlights this perfectly.
As you point out, with the restrictions placed on BBB, it is incumbent on congress to pass the legislation needed to curb lower courts - John Roberts doesn't seem to have the "fire in the belly" to get this done, however congress does. There is precedent to this, as Thomas Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolished some federal district courts, and led to Stuart vs Laird, in which the Supreme Court affirmed Congress' authority to abolish courts and reassign judicial duties.
It's all there if the congress has the will to do the right thing. Unfortunately I believe congress is more interested their own reelection than in the good of the country. Quoting your article, " The BBB, for all its flaws, seems a necessary step. It’s not the whole fight, but it’s the one in front of us. Make up your own mind, but let’s focus on the right battles, armed with the right facts" with which I abolutley agree.
Every time I hear the oft-repeated and inevitable phrase: "the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office" I cringe.
Thank you Michael!
Though it is weird that the only time Democrats bemoan the national debt is when the GOP is the majority in both houses. Democrat-incurred debt, I suppose, is never a problem.
Thank you. That is extremely helpful
Good recap for us Michael. The damn if we do and damn if we don't is at best the choice between 2 evils. Only as you say, one evil is a lot slower to arrive, and with appropriate measures taken by the GOP in the meantime, we should be able to keep the ship afloat. And therein lies my concern. Do we have enough GOP leaders with cojones to do what is necessary? Time will tell. In the meantime, I am building my fallout shelter in a spot far away from any major city.
Not having slogged through the text nor having inside friends to legi-splain, I wonder why this simple limited bill is
a thousand plus pages long?
Well, it is neither simple or limited within the scope of the bill. It is actually sort of trashy and I would bet the Senate version will remove some of it.
Thank you. l've been ignoring the palaver promoted by Dems and MSM for all the reasons you outline. It has taken more than a generation to get into the mess our federal government is in -- I surmise the fix will require courage and sustained action to get back to Constitutional gov't.
Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying your view point and offering an explanation of BBB in ready to understand language.
Thank you for articulating so succinctly and so well what I have struggling to explain to even conservatives!
Bravo! Thank you for this article; and for the explanation.