How do one-off adjustments and policy decisions create apparent gaps between parties' fiscal plans?
Executive summary
One-off adjustments (temporary rescissions, continuing resolutions, or assumed expirations) and competing baseline choices make headline “gaps” between parties’ fiscal plans look larger than underlying policy differences. For example, Democrats criticize Republican budgets for relying on unrealistically high GDP growth and for not counting the cost of extending 2017 tax cuts, while Republicans often use current-law baselines that assume expirations — decisions that can change 10‑year costs by trillions [1] [2] [3]. The Congressional Budget Office’s baseline conventions and recent one-time legislative actions — such as rescissions and continuing resolutions — also shift short‑term deficit numbers without reflecting permanent policy divergence [4] [5].
1. How “one‑offs” warp direct comparisons: temporary moves, lasting headlines
Budget scores spike or drop when lawmakers insert temporary actions — rescissions, continuing resolutions, or short‑term offsets — that affect a single year but not the structural path of spending or revenue. CBO and other analysts annualize temporary funding bills in their baseline, which can make a one‑year rescission look like a durable saving or vice versa; CBO’s baseline treatment of temporary appropriations and rescissions changed the FY2025 outlook and influenced the reported $1.9 trillion deficit figure for that year [4]. The Trump administration’s 2025 use of rescissions became a bargaining lever and muddled comparisons because rescissions can erase or postpone Democratic proposals in headline budget totals even if underlying policy commitments remain [5].
2. Baseline choices: the hidden accounting rule that creates “apples vs. oranges” fights
Parties choose different baselines to frame their plans. A “current‑law” baseline treats scheduled expirations (like many provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) as lapsing, which makes extending them look costly; a “current‑policy” baseline assumes continuation, making extensions appear $0 cost in political messaging. Analysts show that assuming TCJA provisions expire costs more than $4 trillion to extend over a decade, while assuming they continue makes those extensions look budget‑neutral — a choice that explains much of the numerical gap between House Republican and Senate/Democratic portrayals [3] [6] [2].
3. Growth and macro assumptions: optimistic math vs. political messaging
Budget outcomes hinge on macroeconomic assumptions. House Republican plans have projected higher nominal GDP growth than the Administration’s budget, which reduces projected debt ratios in their models; Democrats label those assumptions “questionable” because faster growth reduces projected deficits without immediate policy changes [1]. Growth assumptions are a legitimate analytical tool but are easily weaponized: raising expected GDP by a percentage point or two over a decade materially narrows projected deficits on paper even if policy drivers for that growth are not specified [1].
4. Reconciliation tricks and the “rules of the game” that hide real costs
Procedural choices, like relying on a budget resolution to enable reconciliation or crafting deficit‑neutral reserve funds, affect what gets counted and when. The budget resolution is a political vehicle that can lock in a baseline and permit fast‑track tax or spending changes; it also encourages some lawmakers to omit long‑term costs in order to meet reconciliation constraints or to secure procedural advantages [3]. Independent scorekeepers like the Joint Committee on Taxation still estimate real revenue effects — for instance, extending TCJA expiration items would cut revenue by roughly $3 trillion over a decade — but those figures can be sidelined in short‑term legislative maneuvers [7].
5. What journalists and voters should watch for: separating rhetoric from durable policy
When parties announce “deficit‑cutting” or “tax‑cut” plans, look for three signals in the source documents and independent scores: whether savings are one‑time or permanent; which baseline is being used (current law vs. current policy); and the macroeconomic assumptions behind long‑run projections [1] [3] [4]. Independent, nonpartisan scorekeepers (CBO, JCT) and fiscal groups that explain baseline conventions help reveal whether a gap reflects real policy divergence or accounting choices [4] [7].
6. Competing perspectives and the political incentives behind them
Parties have transparent incentives: majorities want plans that look feasible and electorally attractive; minorities want to show alarm. Democrats frame Republican assumptions as optimistic and their baselines as ignoring the true cost of extending tax cuts [1]. Republicans emphasize current‑law baselines and procedural routes that make their priorities easier to enact. Bipartisan analysts and policy shops warn that these are not merely semantic fights — they shape what can be enacted and how the public perceives fiscal responsibility — but they also stress that differing assumptions, not only policy, drive much of the headline disagreement [8] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not include every recent budget memorandum or every CBO letter after January 2025; for claims about precise dollar differences, the CBO and JCT detailed scores cited above are the authoritative followups [4] [7].