GOP lawmakers dismiss CBO analysis showing Trump bill would increase deficit

Republicans and Democrats have a long history of using the analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to their advantage when it suits their political agenda. However, with the recent unfavorable reviews of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill,” some GOP members are questioning the relevancy of the agency.

The CBO’s latest analysis of the massive tax cut and spending package put forth by House Republicans revealed some alarming figures. The super bill was projected to add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade and result in millions losing their health insurance coverage.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that changes are likely to be made to the House’s version of the bill by Senate Republicans. Despite Trump’s warnings to make minimal changes to the bill, Congress members are determined to address the concerns raised by the CBO.

Many Republicans have dismissed the agency’s findings, arguing that the CBO’s scoring does not take into account expected economic growth or other crucial factors. Senator Jim Banks of Indiana expressed his disregard for the CBO, stating that the numbers speak for themselves and questioning the agency’s credibility.

The CBO’s assessment highlighted that the proposed bill would cut $1.2 trillion over a decade, add $2.4 trillion to the deficit, and reduce revenues by $3.6 trillion. Additionally, it revealed that nearly 11 million individuals would lose their Medicaid coverage if the GOP’s proposed cuts were implemented.

However, the White House refuted the CBO’s scores, claiming that the bill would generate approximately $6.6 trillion in savings over the next decade through spending cuts, regulatory reversals, and tariffs – which are not part of the bill. Some lawmakers pointed out the inaccuracies in the agency’s past scoring, particularly regarding Trump’s 2017 tax package.

Representative Troy Nehls of Texas questioned the purpose of the CBO, while Representative Pat Fallon called for the agency to be more accurate in its assessments. Despite criticisms, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska emphasized the importance of having a source for scores, suggesting that the CBO serves a necessary function.

Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas acknowledged the bias within the CBO and expressed skepticism about the agency’s future relevance. He suggested that artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially replace the CBO for conducting sensitivity analyses in the future.

In conclusion, while some Republicans question the credibility of the CBO and its scoring methods, others recognize the need for an independent source of financial analysis. The ongoing debate highlights the complex relationship between lawmakers and the CBO, as they navigate the challenges of fiscal policy and budgeting in a partisan political landscape.