The Congressional Budget Office is now admitting that President Trump's tax cuts will pay for themselves and more, although we will never read that in most of the press.  

Here is one instance, though, from the Wall Street Journal, with a few snippets: "Tax Cut Growth Dividend."

And here is what we learn from it.

The CBO says the economy will grow 3.3% this year, the most since 2005.

Revenues over 10 years are estimated at $44.1 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than the CBO's estimate before the tax cuts.

The CBO also says the tax cut will make the economy grow faster – to 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019.  The last time the economy grew this fast was in 2005 (which was after President George W. Bush's tax cuts).  This produces more revenue that the CBO previously estimated.

The CBO says growth will fall back down to Obama-era levels starting in 2020, but the budget bureau's economists are Keynesians of the Larry Summers school.  They give little credit to supply-side incentives from tax cuts but see a large growth effect from government spending.  They haven't learned from their mistake in overestimating growth from the 2009 Obama spending spree.

For months, we have been hearing from experts, the media, and Democrats, all of whom have been yelling from their high horse that Trump's tax cuts would be a disaster and lead to a higher deficit because they would cost the government $1.5 trillion over ten years.  Now, according to their latest projections, the tax cuts will produce more growth and will actually produce $1 trillion more in revenue, not $1.5 trillion less.  Therefore, the CBO missed the projection by only $2.5 trillion in a few months.  Does anyone think its ten-year projections are accurate?

Even in these more optimistic projections, somehow the idiots at the CBO don't understand the massive compounding of growth because of the people and businesses being allowed to keep more of their own money.

My guess is we will continue to see the mantra repeated that the tax cuts cost $1.5 trillion because the factual numbers are tremendously inconvenient when the media are pushing the Democrat agenda.

Studies also indicate that the rich will pay a larger share than ever, so why do we keep hearing that the tax cut was for the rich?  In fact, the bottom 60% of Americans with earnings below $86,000 will pay zero in income taxes even though they earn 27% of the income.  Does that sound fair?  Does anyone thing these statistics will be widely reported?

Journalists like to pretend they are all about reporting factual news when in fact they mostly spout Democrat talking points instead of reporting actual facts.

Does anyone think journalists and other Democrats will stop saying the tax cuts are for the rich, that they add to the deficit and are bad for the economy in the long run?  I certainly have no hope that they will start telling the truth.  It is too inconvenient.  Maybe Al Gore could write a book on tax cuts that is actually true and reuse the name "An Inconvenient Truth."

From The Hill:

An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that under the Republican bill, high-income Americans will pay an even larger percentage of the country's overall income taxes in 2018 than they did before, while people in lower brackets will pay a smaller amount.

Specifically, the TPC estimates that the 20 percent of Americans that earn $150,000 or more will account for 52 percent of the country's income, unchanged from last year, but will pay about 87 percent of total income taxes, up from 84 percent in 2017.  Isn't that a "fair share"? 

The bottom 60 percent of Americans, with earnings below roughly $86,000, will account for 27 percent of the country's income but will not pay any income tax at all.  In 2017, that lower tier contributed 2 percent of income taxes.

Why does anyone treat the CBO predictions as accurate when they are nothing more than a wild guess based on garbage input?  How can they possibly miss ten-year projections of revenue by $2.5 trillion within a few months?  Why do they continue to predict that tax cuts cost the government money when previous across-the-board tax cuts under Presidents Reagan and Bush both produced substantially more growth and substantially more revenue? Shouldn't the CBO bureaucrats actually use history as guidance instead of their beliefs?

The CBO also predicted that Obamacare would reduce the deficit when, within a few years they knew that it would add trillions to the deficit.  The CBO also predicted that 26 million would be signed up on Obamacare exchanges by 2016.  The actual number was around 11 million.

Why does the CBO always underestimate the positive effects of pro-growth policies and overestimate the positives of pro-government policies.  I think we all know the answer.  They are pro-government bureaucrats buttering their own bread.

Aren't journalists ever embarrassed by repeatedly acting as if the predictions are true when the numbers almost always are so far off?