Political restraints, this is a good thing. This is removing the con strant on theest maters that my concern is exactly what youre talking about. That theyll actually be pushed that congress would be mad if they say we dont know. Im very sympathetic because were just saying this is good for growth or bad for growth. But the problem is the answer should be no if we dont no. Do we know enough about this . Yeah, we know enough about this as just as much as efg educational that we score. I think we know a lit less. Im not sure thats true. Honestly. We know that the precise answer of zero is exactly wrong. Theres no virtue to being exactly wrong. By knowing that there might be an impact and saying well ignore it. So i think sort of doing this makes sense. Remember, this bill would probably not get dynamically scored. Its not big enough, the one youre worried about. This is only done in the house rule and should only be done for a major piece of legislation at large predictable impacts. So m
Its just over two hours. For those of us who have been in washington for a while feels a little bit like this person will say this and then this person will say the predictable thing and then marty sul van will say this and bob mcintyre will say that. So well probably have a little of that today. But our goal today was to move a little bit beyond the conversation about whether dynamic scoring is either the best thing to ever happen to washington or the worst thing to ever happen to washington. And, instead, to focus a little more on what is it actually mean and how do you do it. What were going to focus on today is skpaktly how it would be done. What assumptions youd have to make. What are the challenges that the jct and the cbo staff face in doing it. How can it be best presented so that members of congress and the rest of us have a clue as to what the analysis does. So this is a bit of an experiment. And, moving beyond the basic pissing context in washington to look at a little bit o