Sandwichman has been documenting the controversy over secondary and indirect benefits in the early 1950s that eventually resulted in their virtual exclusion from standard cost-benefit analysis, as per Bureau of the Budget Circular A-47. Implementing dynamic scoring for tax cuts would, in effect, declare "multipliers for me but no multiplier for thee."
As the panel of consultant's report from 1952 outlined in excruciating detail, there are limits to the usefulness and transparency of incorporating secondary and indirect benefits in a quantitative cost benefit analysis. There are also huge pitfalls in disregarding these difficult or impossible to quantify outcomes. Familiarity with the panel's discussion could inform deliberation over the dynamic scoring proposal.
I have so far posted Parts I and II of the report. I have scanned in and proof read Part III but its considerable length poses some formatting challenges for posting on the blog.
Part IA. Instructions of Michael W. Straus, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, to Panel of Consultants on Secondary or Indirect Benefits
Part IB. Summary Response to the Commissioner's Instructions
Part IIA. Conclusions and Recommendations: Introduction
Part IIB Conclusions and Recommendations: Summary of Principal Recommendations
Part III. Several Principles, and Some of Their Consequences