I’m with Pete.

As for my mandatory disclosures, I worked at CBO for 2-1/2 years, between 1981 and 1984. I never have been a member of the staff of JCT, although some would allege that I played one on TV. The closest I ever came, really, was when Treasury allowed me to speak for 15 seconds at an OTP going-away party. (It was a classic performance, though.)

Anyhow, the image of a consolidated CBO-JCT recalls the characterizations of the failed Citibank: an empire so vast and diverse that no one could run it, and where enormous damage could be done by any one part. Compound that with divided responsibility to the leadership in Congress. CBO works for the Budget Committees. Could the tax component of CBO answer to the Budget Chairmen while doing the work needed by the Chairmen of Ways & Means and Finance? Does the Congress want to give the unelected CBO director (and through him the Budget Chairs) that much power? Should it?

If the logic of this idea were carried to its conclusion, how much of the responsibility of the staffs of the other Committees would be shifted to CBO? I’m not sure, but I do not believe that the answer would be the null set.

If we were able to start from scratch, would we create the system that we have today? Where would we draw the line between revenue projections as part of the budget, and cost estimates of individual tax provisions? Would it be very far from where it is today? I don’t think so. But to me, a more pressing question is: Would we divide responsibility for health care among Energy & Commerce, Education & Labor, and Ways & Means?

I believe that sound leadership of CBO and JCT can put the interests of the public and the Congress first, cooperate, and get the job done. I have seen it happen. It isn’t always easy, but we should not be surprised at the difficult moments. The CBO-JCT seam is not the only place in the Congress where there is friction.

You have a blog, so I guess you get to say whatever you want. But you should know that people don’t take you seriously when you’ve demonstrated you don’t care about the truth. See comments in brackets embedded in your text.

Should CBO Take Over JCT? [Why would you pose this question? No one has proposed doing so, or at least no one you mentioned in your post]

That’s what former Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Ed Kleinbard proposed in footnote 111 on page 43 of this draft paper recently. [No, it’s not what Kleinbard proposed. If you think so, it is clear that you did not bother to read the paper, let alone page 43, or at least the one sentence on that page which is footnoted as follows: “Just as the CBO estimates the budget consequences of all legislation, and CBO identifies and estimates the cost of unfunded mandates (as required by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act), so too it [CBO] would identify new tax subsidies in revenue legislation.111 Footnote 111 It is the author’s view that the CBO is better suited to this task than is the JCT Staff, from the perspective of both the relative stature and the independence of the two organizations. In particular, the JCT Staff is very much staff to the two taxwriting committees, and therefore almost by definition to their Chairmen. The CBO by contrast is organized as an independent agency controlled by the Congress, not Congressional staff, and has a clear statutory mission. Similarly, the Chief of Staff of the JCT serves at the pleasure of the two Chairmen of the taxwriting committees, while the CBO Director is appointed for a fixed term and can be removed only by a majority vote of one chamber of Congress. These differences have real meaning within Congress. A larger question, not strictly germane to the present paper [see? Kleinbard is posing a question…he says “the larger question” (of moving JCT into CBO) is not part of his paper, and he certainly is not answering it with the answer you say he does in your first sentence], is whether the tax legislative process could be improved by relocating the function of the JCT Staff within the CBO.” [emphasis added] [Kleinbard is proposing that someone do something that no one currently does – identify new tax subsidies in revenue legislation. And he is proposing that CBO be the outfit given the new responsibility to carry out this new task, not that CBO should take over JCT.] He stated [no, he didn’t state what you are saying he stated….look above at the excerpt from the paper and read the underlined parts] : “It is the author’s view that the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] is better suited to this task [scoring tax bills [Again, reading can be a wonderful thing… read the sentence that footnote 111 is footnoting. It says that Kleinbard is proposing that CBO would be the outfit that “would identify new tax subsidies in revenue legislation”…not be the outfit that “scores tax bills,” as you stated. Kleinbard is suggesting that after JCT estimates/scores the tax bill, CBO should be the agency that looks through the bill and score and tallies up a list of what in the bill represents new tax subsidies] than is the JCT Staff, from the perspective of both the relative stature and the independence of the two organizations.” [Another piece of evidence indicating you failed to read the paper carefully is that you did not mention the following sentence on p. 44 (if you had read it I am sure you would have used it) that, admittedly does seem to muddy up his otherwise clear proposal on p. 43 for a limited role for CBO in the area of identifying tax subsidies): “As a result, relying on the CBO to identify and score new tax subsidies in revenue bills will be unsurprising to members of Congress, and the CBO’s findings, while often the subject of grumbling, should not trigger political defections from the larger framework process.” By this, Kleinbard means that CBO would identify tax subsidies in legislation, using JCT estimates, and then tally them up with a summary score for Congress. If you’re not sure, call him up and ask him yourself!]

[At this point, readers of your blog who are familiar with Kleinbard’s paper will stop reading and dismiss all the rest of what you have to say, because you have totally misrepresented his paper. Readers of your blog who are not familiar with the paper will be grossly misinformed about what it says and will wonder “what the heck is he thinking?” – maybe that’s the result you want?]

First, I worked on the Joint Committee on Taxation from March 1, 1974 until February 1, 1981, and I maintain strong ties there.

Second, along with other Joint Tax staff, I helped pass the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act which set up CBO. Ever since, Joint Tax has supported CBO every step of the way, often without getting much credit. I personally pulled a lot of all-nighters to supply CBO with estimates, as have Joint Tax staff ever since. [Enough already. Everyone on Capitol Hill feels loyal to their institution and works hard for little credit – it doesn’t entitle you to make up stuff about Kleinbard’s argument.]

Third, I don’t normally engage in personalities, but Ed Kleinbard has really struck a low blow here [by lying about what Kleinbard has written, your blow is lower]. After a drive-by two years as Joint Tax Chief to buff his academic credentials with some real world tax legislative experience, Kleinbard’s suggestion amounts to betrayal under fire and leaving your troops to die. Ed’s initial appearances before the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees featured embarrassing lectures to members of Congress who, unbeknownst to him, understood only too well the political implications of his theories. Then he added numerous useless academic studies to the already crushing workload of the JCT staff. Finally, he managed to alienate [JCT was pretty good about alienating Hill staff other than tax writing committees both before and after Kleinbard] other Hill staff vital to his legislative duties. The only reason Kleinbard escaped Capitol Hill with his outside reputation in tact was because of the incredible hard work, loyalty, and discretion of his Joint Tax staff and because the members of Congress who hired him were glad to see him go.
Back to substance. CBO by statute is more independent than JCT, and it enjoys a deserved reputation for calling them as they see them in scoring bills. JCT is just as unbiased and nonpartisan, but it is tasked with writing law [I thought Congress wrote laws??], while CBO enjoys the luxury of evaluating law others write. The suggestion [whose suggestion? Not Kleinbard’s. ] that the tax legislative process can be cleaned up by having CBO take over JCT is a dangerous fantasy. The last time I checked the Constitution, the Congress is elected to pass bills, which the President may sign into law. Nowhere does it say members of Congress should defer to smart, impartial staff like Ed Kleinbard [to do what, write tax law? That is the implication of your sentence. But Kleinbard is not proposing he/JCT or CBO should write tax law or any other law. He is just proposing that when Congress enacts a tax law, someone – he suggests CBO – be given the job (which itself would require legislation) of making a list of the tax subsidies in that tax law, just like CBO already has the job -- that Congress asks it to do in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 – of identifying unfunded mandates (although the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 – which you helped write, remember?? – already gave CBO the job of doing federal cost estimates and estimating the costs of legislation to state and local governments). If you check the Budget Act, you will find there are specific, though rarely used, provisions for Congress to override CBO and JCT estimates and economic assumptions. Members of Congress are elected and stay elected by keeping their constituents happy. Surprise, surprise, that means we end up with a Tax Code that stinks like Limburger cheese. No matter what staff score revenue bills, the stink will not go away. Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Taxation attracts some of the best tax economists, tax accountants, and tax lawyers in the country, who work very hard with little thanks to give us the best possible Tax Code under very difficult conditions. If CBO took over JCT, the tax writing committees of Congress would simply do more end runs around CBO [instead of doing end runs around JCT? or they would do more end runs around CBO than the end runs they already do around CBO even though they currently don’t do end runs around JCT…no one has any idea what you are talking about here because you don’t bother to explain what you are talking about…it is just babbling]. It would be easier to do because CBO, which has very few lawyers or accountants, wouldn’t retain as many dedicated tax economists, tax accountants, and tax lawyers as JCT can with its more focused mission [why? Nonsense]. The real test here, which Ed Kleinbard obviously failed, is whether you’re dedicated enough to stick around for the long, hard war to protect the Tax Code [so JCT’s job is to protect the tax code, not do the best estimates possible??]. Fortunately, like most of Ed Kleinbard’s advice, Congress will ignore this suggestion too.