In a sharp rebuke of a New York Times investigation, an analysis by the nonpartisan CBO found that a last-minute provision added to the early January "fiscal cliff" bill could save taxpayers as much as $4 billion -- rather than costing $500 million, as the Times had claimed.
It's no surprise that American corporations spend billions of dollars each year on lobbying, trying to gain favorable treatment from legislators. What some may find a bit unnerving is the industry that's leading the pack in these efforts.
We're still having the wrong discussion. It shouldn't be how to cut the budget deficit. It should be how to bring back good jobs and economic growth. Deficit hawks and government-haters are still framing the debate. That bodes ill for all of us.
The short version of the CBO's report is: Spending's going down, but we desperately need jobs. So how did the President and Congress respond? They kept arguing about who's got the better plan for making spending go down some more.
CBO's out with a new budget and economic analysis today, and as you can imagine we're all just on shpilkes going through and picking out nuggets. In order to make a lot more sense out of the numbers, we have to adjust them to be on the baseline we believe to be most realistic.
Holding a one-year extension of the Bush middle-class tax cuts hostage to an extension of tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 , as House Republicans have done, creates dangerous economic risks with little economic upside.
Just as Romney's 47% number is not evidence of a massive breakdown of society, the 12% average decline in household incomes in the wake of the 2008 collapse may not actually be evidence of a widespread collapse in family incomes.