[3] The bill would require the analysis to describe: (1) the potential economic impact of the bill or resolution on major economic variables, including real GDP, business investment, the capital stock, employment, interest rates, and labor supply; and (2) the potential fiscal effects of the measure, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in GDP.

1874 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect.

1874, the CBO would be required to provide—to the extent practicable—an analysis of the impact on the economy of any bill that would have an estimated budgetary effect of greater than 0.25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in any fiscal year.

The macroeconomic analysis would include the estimated effect on revenues and outlays of a change in GDP resulting from the legislation being evaluated.

Price said "that is a model that has proven to be incapable of providing the type of macroeconomic diagnosis folks need to make sure we are pursuing policies that will help generate economic opportunity and bring down the nation's debt.

"[2] The organization Americans for Prosperity supported the bill, arguing that requiring the CBO to use "dynamic scoring it its reports" would "give Congress a more realistic estimate of the fiscal impact of federal legislation.

"[5] Democrats on the House Budget Committee criticized the bill, writing that dynamic scoring is "a methodology favored by Republicans because its subjective nature lends itself to the make-believe theory that tax breaks for the wealthy pay for themselves due to trickle-down economics.