In response to emerging reports that the Biden White House -- long insistent that their 'Build Back Better' math is spot-on -- has been quietly warning Democratic lawmakers that a forthcoming nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 'score' of the multi-trillion-dollar legislation will not live up to their rosy rhetoric, a GOP operative snarks, "well that can't be true, I was told the cost was $0." This callback to a particularly fragrant White House talking point aside, this development could prove highly significant. The president just took a victory lap over the bipartisan infrastructure legislation (BIF) he signed into law on the South Lawn yesterday afternoon. But the bigger battle that lies ahead will be over the partisan reconciliation proposal that will attract no Republican support. Democrats have nearly zero margin for error in either chamber, yet they're trying to use a budget tactic to push through a sweeping Statist agenda. Team Biden and Democratic leadership has promised that the legislation is "fully paid for" and would not add to deficits at all. In fact, this pledge was central to a recent deal among House Democrats. Progressives and 'moderates' assented to a deal under which BIF was decoupled from BBB and passed separately, contingent on an understanding that they would all go along with the latter package as soon as a CBO analysis confirmed the administration's numbers. But therein lies an escape hatch:
The late-night vote on infrastructure followed an agreement between factions of the Democratic Party, as moderate members issued further assurances that they would pass the larger spending bill when it comes up for a vote. "We commit to voting for the Build Back Better Act, in its current form ... as expeditiously as we receive fiscal information from the Congressional Budget Office — but in no event later than the week of November 15th — consistent with the toplines for revenues and investments" in the White House framework, a key group of five moderates — Reps. Ed Case, D-Hawaii, Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. — said in statement. The group added that if the CBO score is inconsistent with the White House framework, they "remain committed to working to resolve any discrepancies in order to pass Build Back Better legislation." A short time later, the chair of the progressive caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., issued a statement saying her caucus had reached agreement with "our colleagues ... to advance both pieces of President Biden's legislative agenda."
They'd pass the bill out of the lower chamber this week unless CBO throws a wrench by delivering a score that is "inconsistent with" White House assurances. So, about that:
"The WH has begun bracing lawmakers for a disappointing estimate from the CBO, which is likely to find that the cost of the BBB will not be fully paid for with new tax revenue over the coming decade." @arappeport https://t.co/JoDEx6DZ8g
— Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) November 15, 2021
Recommended
...The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Monday that the I.R.S. proposal would yield far less than what the White House was counting on to help pay for its bill — about $120 billion over a decade versus the $400 billion that the administration is counting on. A formal tally is expected to be released on Friday, but the projection by Phillip Swagel, who heads the budget office, could pose another setback for Mr. Biden’s domestic policy legislation, which is already facing steep hurdles in the House and Senate. The White House has begun bracing lawmakers for a disappointing estimate from the budget office, which is likely to find that the cost of the overall package will not be fully paid for with new tax revenue over the coming decade. Senior administration officials are urging lawmakers to disregard the budget office assessment, saying it is being overly conservative in its calculations
In a radio interview with former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin yesterday, I asked what other potential score-related snags he foresees, based on his experience. Holtz-Eakin replied that he believes a major spending provision could also end up costing significantly more than the administration has formally anticipated:
The New York Times report quoted above pegs the possible 'fully paid for' shortfall in the hundreds of billions. Oops. That figure would not include the other would-be mismatch Holtz-Eakin identified, nor would it entail the major smoke-and-mirrors gimmicks loaded into the bill, the purpose of which are to manipulate the score. What comes next? A few options: First, this could be a head fake or needless concern from the White House. Maybe the math, rigged as is it, will add up. Problem solved, at least in the House, clearing the decks for passage. Second, CBO confirms that the bill is not fully paid for, and some of the more moderate Democrats start to balk. Part of the arrangement is that they're committed to finding adjustments that would fix any such discrepancy, but this would take time, and some members may start contemplating whether they just want to take the W with infrastructure and wash their hands of BBB. CBO would offer a tempting off-ramp. The bill could be adjusted, delayed, or derailed. Third, the same moderates who demanded a CBO score in the first place could cave to White House pressure and "disregard the budget office assessment," as Team Biden is asking them to. This would be shameless and irresponsible, but Democrats almost always walk the plank for leadership at the end of the day, even if it means getting wiped out by voters. Massively expanding government is the purpose of their party, and they rarely pass on the opportunity to do so.
My bet would be on some combination of options two and three (new negotiations, delays and alterations, culminating in passage of something, but with a non-zero chance of collapse), with one complicating wrinkle: The Senate. All of the action described above is in the House. The upper chamber has two Democrats who are not yet on board, and have even less incentive to knuckle under, now that the BIF package they negotiated was liberated from progressive hostage jail and signed into law. Are House moderates willing to take a big vote on a plan that almost certainly won't become law as written? Or perhaps at all? This vote would require them to support middle class tax increases and tax breaks for millionaires. Either one of those could be politically exploitable in isolation; paired together, they're a potent attack. Latching onto those tax outcomes in a bill that might not go anywhere is a big risk. Unfazed by nonpartisan analyses, the president keeps lying about these provisions:
Joe Biden falsely claims "no one earning less than $400,000 will pay a single penny in taxes because of" his $1.75 trillion tax-and-spending bill.
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 15, 2021
The bill raises taxes on 30% of middle class families. pic.twitter.com/MN0rCo95Uf
This simply is not true, based on the House bill itself. Many, many millions of Americans -- including working and middle class taxpayers -- will see their taxes go up in 2022, then again in 2023. That's according to left-leaning and Democrat-aligned economists and scorekeepers. A House vote could come as soon as Friday or Saturday, but we've seen announced votes punted before during this whole reckless saga. Stay tuned.
UPDATE - They're attacking the CBO score in advance, which is spin. They'll ask people to trust their competence at running the "true" numbers better than the nonpartisan scorekeeper. Aside from this being a bad look in general, who trusts the Biden administration's competence at this point?
??Amid reports the WH privately warned CBO score will show BBB is not fully paid for, @AndrewJBates46 says: "There's wide agreement CBO doesn't have experience analyzing revenue amounts gained from cracking down on wealthy tax cheats who are taking advantage of honest taxpayers."
— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) November 16, 2021
And for what it's worth, some of the "moderates" are apparently telling reporters that they're unbothered by the "gap in scores," suggesting that they'll follow orders and cave. We'll see.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member