Better, Mick Mulvaney said, for opponents of legislation to supply their studies and advocates to supply their own. “And if it works, they would get re-elected and if it doesn’t, they don’t.”
Mr. Mulvaney’s critique would be more convincing if the administration had in fact put forth its own estimates of the economic effects of its proposals. It hasn’t. Its failure to account for the trade-offs of tax cuts (bigger deficits) or reduced subsidies for health care (more uninsured) are one reason Mr. Trump’s agenda is moving so slowly.
.. Forecasts will be wrong more often than right. But they provide a benchmark against which to test proposals based on theory and evidence rather than instinct or unproven ideological priors.
..That discipline has been lacking in Mr. Trump’s administration. When Mr. Trump announced last week he was pulling out of the Paris climate accord, he cited not internal research on the economic harms of the deal, but a private study commissioned by two groups critical of greenhouse gas regulation.
His budget two weeks ago was noteworthy for both forecasting 3% growth, much faster than what independent analysts think plausible, and the absence of any detailed analysis of how it will be achieved. Administration officials then contradicted each other on whether tax cuts would be financed with other tax increases.
.. This may reflect the absence of economists in its hallways, a result of Mr. Trump’s apparent early disdain for experts in general.
.. “I sleep better knowing James Mattis is defense secretary and I will sleep better if Kevin Hassett is confirmed as CEA chair.”