Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
Tue Jan 10, 2017, 09:54 AM Jan 2017

I got some clarification on the House Res. 5 concerning ACA CBO estimates from someone in the CBO

I sent a friend who works in the CBO the item going around FB before posting, to get her take.

"House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA."

Her response:

"This is false. Section 3(h) on page 25 of H.Res 5 establishes a point of order against a bill that would increase net direct spending by more than $5 billion in any of the four decades AFTER the budget window used for cost estimates prepared under the Budget Act. And it requires CBO to include in its cost estimates an analysis of whether the bill increases such costs in the long term (that requirement has been in place for quite some time).

That section (in 3(h)(4)(A) and (B) then exempts ACA related bills from that long term requirement. It has nothing to do with whether CBO can provide the normal cost estimates of legislation, including those related to the ACA. Furthermore, this a House rule; it does not apply to the Senate."

She said that the reporting on this has been very uninformed. I'm grateful that it's not what it appears, and we can focus on other items in the resolution such as Planned Parenthood persecution.


2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I got some clarification on the House Res. 5 concerning ACA CBO estimates from someone in the CBO (Original Post) ehrnst Jan 2017 OP
We do seem to focus on a lot of things lately that don't withstand fact checking. Thanks for input. Hoyt Jan 2017 #1
There's not a lot of time to factcheck, but there are people at the ready if we need them. (nt) ehrnst Jan 2017 #2
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. We do seem to focus on a lot of things lately that don't withstand fact checking. Thanks for input.
Tue Jan 10, 2017, 10:10 AM
Jan 2017
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
2. There's not a lot of time to factcheck, but there are people at the ready if we need them. (nt)
Tue Jan 10, 2017, 10:20 AM
Jan 2017
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I got some clarification ...