Conservative Group Alleges Partisan Bias Within CBO’s Health Analysis Division

A new report from the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a conservative government research nonprofit, is raising concerns about the nonpartisan reputation of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), specifically its Health Analysis Division (HAD). The AAF alleges that a significant majority of the HAD staff have demonstrable liberal biases, potentially influencing the agency’s analyses of health care policy and budget projections.

The CBO, tasked with providing objective economic and budgetary analysis to Congress, has long been considered a neutral arbiter of policy impacts. This reputation is crucial for lawmakers who rely on the CBO’s assessments to make informed decisions about legislation. However, the AAF’s findings challenge this perception, suggesting that the HAD may be operating with a progressive slant.

According to the AAF memo, 26 out of the 32 staff members in the HAD – a full 84% – have "clearly verified liberal partisan biases." These biases are identified through various indicators, including records of Democratic party registration, donations to Democratic candidates, and participation in Democratic primary elections. The AAF argues that this concentration of individuals with apparent partisan leanings raises serious questions about the objectivity and impartiality of the HAD’s work.

AAF President Tom Jones has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the CBO, accusing the agency of disguising itself as a nonpartisan entity while functioning as a "leftist think tank." Jones contends that the HAD staff, many of whom have donated to prominent Democratic figures like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, are using their positions to promote progressive policy changes under the guise of objective analysis.

The AAF report argues that the HAD has been "overtaken by liberal group think," leading to concerns that its pronouncements and scores on health care legislation should be viewed with "deep suspicion." The memo suggests that policymakers should treat the HAD’s analysis similarly to that of overtly progressive institutions such as the Center for American Progress, implying that the HAD’s findings are potentially tainted by partisan ideology.

The HAD plays a crucial role in analyzing federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as subsidies provided through health insurance exchanges. Its staff generates reports on various policy issues and contributes significantly to estimates of proposed changes in health care programs. Given the division’s influence, the AAF’s allegations raise concerns that biased analysis could lead to skewed policy recommendations and potentially detrimental impacts on the health care system.

The AAF report highlights the CBO’s efforts to cultivate a "non-partisan scorekeeper" image, emphasizing that this reputation has been widely embraced by the media. The report claims that over the past year, more than 1,358 news stories have referred to the "nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office," reinforcing the agency’s perceived neutrality. The AAF argues that this widespread perception is a "gaslighting campaign" designed to conceal the agency’s "fundamentally progressive roots."

Jones further alleges that the CBO is actively working to undermine the policies of the Trump administration, particularly during critical periods like budget reconciliation. He suggests that the agency will "slam and stall" Trump’s policy initiatives by producing unfavorable budget scores and analyses.

CBO guidelines explicitly prohibit employees from engaging in political activities that could identify or appear to identify the agency with a political campaign, candidate, officeholder, or cause. The agency’s website states that the potential harm to the CBO’s reputation for objectivity stems from any association with political activity or public advocacy, regardless of the specific positions taken. The CBO also claims that it does not consider political affiliation when hiring new employees.

The AAF report provides specific examples of HAD staff members with apparent Democratic ties. According to the report, Health Analysis Director Chapin White has donated to Democratic candidates, including a $300 contribution to John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004. Other analysts are reported to have donated to prominent Democrats such as Joe Biden and various members of Congress.

The AAF obtained its data through public campaign finance reporting agencies and voter registration offices. The report notes that many CBO employees reside in Virginia, a state that does not have partisan registration. Virginia also restricts access to voter history records, making it difficult to determine whether voters participate in Democratic or Republican primaries. However, the AAF claims to have obtained Virginia voting history information from a "trusted third-party source."

The AAF acknowledges that it was unable to secure voting history or registration information for four HAD staff members. However, the report expresses strong suspicion that these individuals are also likely to be Democrats, suggesting that if asked whether they vote in Democratic or Republican primaries, "very few, if any, will respond that they are Republicans."

The allegations made by the AAF are likely to fuel further debate about the objectivity and impartiality of government agencies. Critics of the AAF may argue that simply being a registered Democrat or donating to Democratic candidates does not necessarily indicate a lack of objectivity or an inability to conduct fair and impartial analysis. They might also point out that the AAF’s own conservative leanings could introduce bias into its research and conclusions.

However, the AAF’s report raises important questions about the potential for partisan bias to influence policy analysis within the CBO. These questions warrant further scrutiny and discussion, particularly given the CBO’s crucial role in informing congressional decision-making. The implications of this report extend beyond the CBO to potentially influence the future trust given to other organizations with similar missions.