The Congressional Budget Office won’t have time to complete a full macroeconomic analysis of the Republican tax plan before senators vote this week, but some of the preliminary findings are brutal. We learned late Sunday, for example, that the GOP proposal would punish the poor fairly quickly, and leave much of the American middle class worse off by the time the Republican plan is fully implemented.
Reporters yesterday asked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the key architects of his party’s package, for his reaction to the CBO officials’ findings. “I don’t think they’re right,” the Utah Republican said.
At this point, it’s tempting to think the chair of the Finance Committee would present the press with a competing analysis or an explanation of where, from his perspective, the CBO went wrong. But Hatch didn’t bother: he saw the Congressional Budget Office’s report and simply decided not to believe it.
With this in mind, the New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum raised an under-appreciated point yesterday.
“Republicans and Democrats have long touted opposing analyses of the economics of taxation. People could look and judge the difference. It cannot be overstated how radical it is for Republicans to simply refuse to present an analysis.”
Quite right. This isn’t necessarily a dispute between partisans relying on competing facts and figures. Rather, what we’re watching is an argument in which one side has decided facts and figures aren’t especially important.
Indeed, they’re annoyances that only get in the way.
This has come up in a variety of ways. There’s quite a bit of evidence, for example, that the Senate Republican plan would adversely affect charitable contributions by reducing tax incentives. GOP officials have responded to these concerns by pretending they don’t exist. (Under normal circumstances, this sort of thing would be explored in committee hearings, giving non-profit leaders a chance to testify, but Republicans haven’t held any such hearings.)









