Explicit Assumptions In Building Dynamic Scoring CBO Models Will Lay Bare The Ineffectiveness Of Government Programs: My Comment To BloombergView Article

My posted comment to BloombergView, "The Best Case Against Dynamic Scoring? These Guys" by Christopher Flavelle:

Let's just look at one quotation from a former CBO director June O'Neill, from the article, to see why many do not want dynamic scoring:

" 'You could attach it to anything with effects beyond cost,' she said. 'You might say education will increase growth, which should be taken into account.' That's unlikely to appeal to current Republicans, who scoff at the idea that government spending has a multiplier effect."

Yes, more useful (math, science, computer and technical) education would increase wages and economic growth, but for education to work and affect the economy, the US needs to increase its HS and college graduation rates and student reading and math test scores. Despite a tremendous increase in federal and state spending on education over the last 40 years, test scores, HS graduation rates (excluding GEDs) and college graduation rates have not increased.

So the simple answer to June O'Neill is that government spending on education, in the real world, does not increase economic growth.

The fear many have that favor government programs is that in dynamic scoring models because the models will have to include effects beyond immediate costs, the explicit assumptions that go into building them will lay bare the ineffectiveness of most government programs. Dynamic scoring and its real world test assumptions will show that the emperor has no clothes other than a law's title and a politician's speech.