MORE ECONOMIC WISDOM FROM RAGGEDY ANN.

This meme circulated earlier this year.

It gets better.  Now a senatorial request for the Congressional Budget Office to perform a sensitivity analysis creates a fake score.  Seriously.

Q Thanks, Jen. Republicans are circulating a modified version of the CBO score for Build Back Better. In their version, it included extensions of programs without being paid for, which we understand is not how the President put forward this legislation. But the reason that they’re saying they did that is because — Lindsey Graham says, “If you believe these programs [are going to] go away [after] one, [or] two…years, you shouldn’t have a driver’s license.” We all know Child Tax Credits are not going to go away after a year. What does the White House say to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, to quote, of all people, Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute who put this quite well — quote, “You can’t assume programs will be extended just because Lindsey Graham wants to assure that. An estimate based on what’s not in the bill is bogus and fundamentally dishonest.”

I mean, this is not a CBO score. This is a fake CBO score. It’s not about the existing bill anybody is debating or voting on. This is about proposing the extension of programs that has not been agreed to without the commitment of the President — which he’s made repeatedly, publicly, that he would never support extending these programs if they weren’t paid for, period. That has been his commitment. That is his commitment.

That might work in Washington, where budget gimmicks, sunset provisions that might as well be written on the hot side of Mercury, and all sorts of magic beliefs about the "out years" are just another day at the office. I'm not persuaded, however.