Yes, it is. However, the “pay-go” system is one that a progressive House of Representatives will have to get rid of. The reasons for this are (1) the system is biased toward deficit neutrality projected over a time period of a decade even though savings and import desires of people may require continuous deficit spending to maintain true full employment. So (2) “pay-go” leads to a stagnating economy and increasing inequality with the passage of time. (3) the budget process generally doesn’t work to produce Appropriations bills so that Continuing Resolutions (CRs) bills are needed to avoid government shutowns. And finally (4) The Congressional Budget Office is technically incapable of accurately projecting deficit neutrality over a 10 year period or even much shorter time frames than that, so that a necessary condition for “pay-go” to be successful even on its own terms isn’t realized.

Studies done of projection accuracy show that there is none to speak of and that projections require revisions within a single fiscal year. In certain years there have been errors of trillions of dollars in CBO projections. So, relying on CBO projections in policy making is nonsensical. Nevertheless, its projections have had considerable impact on policy making and have consistently created an austerity bias in the budget process.

The “pay-go” budgeting system must be replaced by a “spend-tax” system targeting a budget supporting full employment, price stability and other aspects of public purpose. CBO’s role in such a system should be limited to evaluations of past policies and programs to provide guidance about policy impact, so that Congress can abandon what is not working and reinforce what is.