re: Mulvaney: deficit-neutral tax changes insufficient for growth, we need new deficits

quote:

---

Is Mulvaney being misunderstood

---

that doesn't sound like what he's saying here, since the relevant hurdle for them is the 10-year window. and cbo uses dynamic by rule on major legislative changes like this, or if requested by a budget committee chairman

sounds like he's pretty clearly talking about what kind of thing needs to happen to achieve 3%. the growth assumption is the basis for faster revenue growth in the dynamic score, but the growth assumption itself actually needs to be plausible to begin with.

it does seem to follow that he thinks even with the assumption of 3% sustained, 10-year deficit-neutral isn't actually attainable from tax cuts. and that seems likely correct to me