The Congressional Budget Office yesterday issued a cost estimate on H.R. 569, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act that the House Judiciary Committee favorably reported to the full House.  The cost estimate is available here.  CBO says that if enacted, the bill “would cost less than $1 million each year.”  CBO explains:

We expect that the bill would make several hundred service members eligible to file petitions each year, but that only a small portion of those individuals would pursue review by the Supreme Court (based on the experience of individuals whose cases currently qualify for Supreme Court review). CBO cannot predict whether the Supreme Court would grant review of any particular petition. If the Supreme Court agreed to review any petitions, DoD would probably spend no more than $1 million in any year from appropriated funds to defend those cases. (Any such amounts would depend on the number and complexity of such cases.) Enacting H.R. 569 would not affect direct spending or revenues.

5 Responses to “Congressional Budget Office issues cost estimate on Equal Justice for Our Military Act”

  1. Anon says:

    Dr. Evil (played by Dwight Sullivan): “We Can do it all for about (holding pinky up to lip while craddling Mr. Bigglesworth) One Million Dollars.”

    Number Two (played by No-Man): A million dollars isn’t that much money these days.

  2. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Another taxpayer funded Mt. Vernon Square safari? Not if President Obama is asking. Mr. Obanma’s “independent” CBO just revised their estimate from “cost about $1 million a year . . . and an additional $1-2 million” to “less than $1 million . . . and no more than $1 million” in a span of 15 months. See our prior coverage >here. Amazing how the independent CBO changes its tune under a new administration.

  3. Anonymous says:

    of course No Man, it could just as easily be that under Mr. Bush, it wasn’t independent, and now it is. Or there could be new information. Or there could be new people who calculate it differently.

    Bit of a thin reed to make the accusation you are making dontcha think?

  4. No Man says:

    No, I don’t think it is a thin reed because the data input hasn’t changed to anyone’s knowledge. If the data input has changed, or anything had changed, CBO should have explained that, but they didn’t. Consistency would seem to be a key metric for showing independence at the CBO. The tinkering that was done with the words makes me justificably suspicious and should make people think.

  5. Anonymous says:

    So 1 million was the cutoff? Really? In the federal budget?

    1 million was fine but 1-2 million was too much?

    I’m sure no one really thought to ask CBO to explain a change from 1-2 million to 1 million because it’s a pretty small deal.

    What I find particularly interesting was that COL Sullivan noted the inflated prior claims in the post you link to. Then I note your own post in that thread:

    “So I would agree there is some cost, just nothing even close to $500K, much less $1 million.”

    So, the CBO revises their estimate, closer in line to what you think is accurate, and instead of saying good job CBO for getting it right (maybe because someone with the knowledge of you or COL Sullivan provided them info on why they were wrong) you say, that Obama, mighty suspicious.