Yes, I know, you're shocked. But I would be remiss after pointing out earlier that John Cornyn loves the CBO only when the CBO agrees with him, and not point out that Kent Conrad is no different.
Throughout this entire health care reform debate, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has been the biggest advocate of the CBO. He demanded that CBO score health care reform over ten years. He also demanded the CBO must examine the bill and conclude that it would not increase the deficit over the next 20 years.
...When the Star Tribune asked Conrad if he agreed with CBO director Doug Elmendorf's conclusion that, "They seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country," Conrad answered:
I do not agree with the Mr. Elmendorf's assessment on co-ops. Based on the advice of leading actuaries, we are providing enough federal seed money for these co-ops to insure 12 million Americans.
Of course. So what's the point of the CBO, again? The reliance on the CBO scorings as the holy grail throughout this process has been frustrating, because 1) their projections cannot be definitive, they can only project based on what we know now. It's guess work--educated guess work, yes, but guess work. And 2) their conclusions really amount to little more than opportunities for political posturing, on both sides of the aisle.
It'd all be a little easier to take if we'd seen the same kind of painstaking accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Hell, if we'd only had the painstaking accounting for the billions and billions sent down the stinking sink-holes of KBR and Halliburton and Blackwater. Or if anybody took the time to make the case that a bit of cost for the government might just have to be the tradeoff for not allowing tens of thousands of people die every year because they don't have insurance.