Newt Gingrich on the Congressional Budget Office: “A reactionary, socialist institution.”

It must be the middle of November, because once again a prominent Republican is blaming the GOP’s legislative troubles on the Congressional Budget Office. Last year, Politico reported that House Speaker John Boehner was so angry about the budget office’s health care scoring that he wanted to oust director Douglas Elmendorf. This time around, it’s Newt Gingrich who’s on the attack, calling the office a “reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated,” according to CNN.

Budgeting: It’s like socialism! Except not.

Boehner’s irritation was misplaced, and so is Newt’s criticism, which ends up being more self-serving than anything else. The CBO is far from perfect—I’ve spent plenty of time arguing that its scores of President Obama’s health care overhaul don’t accurately reflect the true cost of the law. But the primary problem isn’t the CBO. It’s the elected officials who pass and write legislation. Indeed, the CBO was created in part to restrain politically motivated budgeting B.S.

As former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told me earlier this year, the primary job of the CBO is to score, not forecast, using a consistent set of rules so that legislators and other analysts can compare the relative cost of any particular bill to other legislation. The agency doesn’t second-guess legislative proposals, or try to anticipate changes made by future Congresses. It scores each law as if it will be implemented exactly as it is on paper. “By having that set of rules for scoring, you can compare games across time, across teams, and across all sorts of situations, because you have a common thread of scores,” Holtz-Eakin said. “So the most important thing about scoring is to apply the same rules to every bill.” With the health care overhaul, Democrats in Congress knew this, and took advantage of the agency’s consistent scoring rules in order to produce a favorable legislative score.

When Gingrich complains that the office “doesn’t believe in innovation,” he’s really complaining that they look skeptically on untested budgeting ideas. It’s worth remembering that the CBO didn’t give Democrats everything they wanted on the health care bill, and precisely because of this skepticism. As Matt Yglesias points out, liberal policy wonks had hoped that the law’s array of delivery system innovations and payment reforms would be scored as producing big savings. But because the reforms were all untested, and because the federal government’s record of implementing scalable systematic reforms is weak, the CBO didn’t give them much in the way of savings.

Gingrich, a flaky innovation obsessive who has always had too many half-baked ideas for his own good, clearly doesn’t like that the CBO is bound to shrug its shoulders at his latest plan to build and staff a real-life Jurassic Park with part-time high-schoolers, or whatever.  

And anyway, what’s the alternative? The CBO was created in part as an independent check on White House budget baloney, which in both Democratic and Republican administrations tends to be overly optimistic. One of the harshest assessments of the president’s budget this year came from the CBO. Without the CBO, the White House would have an even easier time touting rosy economic projections, and legislators could tout favorable cost estimates drawn up by their own staff (early in the CBO’s life, it effectively killed a universal health care bill put together by Sen. Ted Kennedy when it estimated that the law would cost three times as much as Kennedy’s staff claimed). As the health care law showed, the CBO’s rules can be gamed. But it’s still better to have those rules than to throw them out.

Gingrich’s complaints tell you more about his own penchant for policy vanity and apocalyptic name-calling than they do about the CBO, or the actual flaws in the congressional budgeting process. Like so many political narcissists, he appears to want to be able to get away with saying that legislation will cost whatever he says it will cost. And when that doesn’t happen? “Reactionary socialism!”

More on Gingrich’s frivolous self-importance here. More on the Congressional Budget Office here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This is not really related. But it is about cash. Have some schadenfreude.
    The amount of customer money missing from the collapsed trading firm MF Global may be more than $1.2 billion — double previous estimates — the trustee dismantling the firm’s brokerage unit said on Monday.

    But the surprise finding, which caught regulators off guard, may be overstated, according to a person briefed on the investigation. Some regulators say they believe that the trustee double-counted $220 million that had been transferred between units of MF Global, this person said.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20.....f=business

    I think Corzine is headed for government accomodations.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Newcular Titties Gingrich. Get with the program Suderman.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He even came up with "Newtron bomb" in his last Gingriffic article. It's a perfect fit.

  • ||

    Newcular Titties

    Give up. It ain't catching on.

  • ||

    Were they "reactionary socialists" when Newt used them to vilify Slick Willy in the 1994 election?

    Fuck Newt. He reminds me of Santorum...and I mean the one that's a mix of lubricant and fecal matter, not the one that's 100% shit.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I'm one who has no problem using socialism as a broad term for many kinds of economic statism. Titties just thinks socialism is anything he doesn't like. Some things that are free market he calls "socialism", and some things that are socialism he is fine with. What a dumbass. Shut up, titties.

  • ||

    The story is not Newt, its the socialism, stupid!

  • ||

    He knows what he's doing. It's a dog whistle to the Tea Party conservatives, and if you look at his polling it's hard to say it isn't working.

  • ChrisO||

    Gingrich will talk his way out of the nomination. Just give him some time.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's like as soon as he became the frontrunner, he suddenly came unhinged again.

    Cthulu willing, he is not long for this position. Like the other candidates, he's somehow making Romney look good. I wouldn't have believed that was even possible.

  • Northerner||

    If Newt and someone else were standing next to me, and someone else murdered Newt, I probably wouldn't call the police. Unless Newt's blood got on me.

  • ||

    Hey you leave the Titties alone!!

    Sorry, I don't like him either. I just wanted to say that.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement