The House Budget, as expected, is not a serious document \u2014 see the tables<\/a>. I\u2019ll skip the fantasy spending cuts, and focus on revenue plans. From CRFB:<\/p>\n The budget resolution assumes\u00a0$2.6 trillion of macroeconomic feedback<\/a>, which press<\/a>\u00a0reports<\/a>\u00a0have indicated is a result of boosting average annual growth to 2.8 percent from a projected 1.8 percent. If one were to assume the House budget\u2019s $2.6 trillion of economic feedback from 2.8 percent average annual growth and $3.3 trillion of net deficit increases, debt would reach 105 percent of GDP by 2034 and the deficit would total 5.6 percent of GDP in 2034.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s a comparison of various estimates compared to the House plan\u2019s estimate.<\/p>\n Notes:<\/strong> Modified by author to match current estimates of dynamic response. Source:<\/strong> CRFB<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The assumed dynamic feedback requires a tremendous supply side response. To see how this alternative worldview compares to CBO current law projection, see Figure 1.<\/p>\n Figure 1:<\/strong> GDP (bold black), CBO projection (light blue), House budget assumed growth (red), all in bn.Ch.2017$ SAAR. Source: BEA advance, CBO January 2025, and author\u2019s calculations.<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s not surprising that the plan is so crazy. Clearly, it\u2019s a linear descendent of the RSG document<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/econbrowser.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/crfb_tcjaextdynamicfeedbk.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/econbrowser.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/magicasterisk.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n