For those who are interested, the House budget plan can be found here:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy14budget.pdf
More importantly, the actual legislative language can be found here:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014_budget_resolution.pdf
A few quick comments:
First, the document talks about long-term fiscal risks.
Second, it seeks to introduce a degree of means-testing to Medicare (something with which I agree). Mandatory spending reform will be needed to address the long-term fiscal imbalances and means-testing is one practical approach. More broadly, it conceptually seeks to delegate a larger share of responsibility for Medicare and Medicaid to the states (an approach that would have its own issues that runs beyond the scope of budget numbers).
Third, it offers some budget process reforms e.g., a point of order against new mandatory spending provisions, that could make it more difficult to expand mandatory spending benefits. In the context of the challenges facing those programs, that's not a bad idea.
Fourth, much critical detail is missing. For example, the plan discusses a broad concept of tax reform but doesn't provide the level of detail necessary to estimate post-reform tax revenue. Instead, the plan states, "This budget accommodates the forthcoming work by House Ways and Means Committee Chiarman Dave Camp of Michigan." As this work is "forthcoming," one does not know the details concerning exemptions, deductions, and other changes that would be needed to estimate post-reform revenue. Absent those details, one does know that income tax rates would be reduced, the alternative minimum tax would be repealed (this is a big source of revenue as per past CBO discussions), and the corporate tax rate would be reduced, all of which would reduce overall tax revenue absent the missing details. Could those changes even be accommodated without reducing overall tax revenue below what would be the case under current law?
Before one automatically assumes that this uncertainty is anything but the result of a lack of detail, the text of the legislative language acknowledges the uncertainty by providing blank amounts for tax revenue (see pages 3 and 4).
Finally, one does not have basic assumptions (GDP growth, interest rates, health cost inflation) on which to build the estimates once the details of the policy changes are developed. One can use CBO or IMF assumptions in those areas, but the report makes no mention of either source of assumptions.
All said, I don't believe there is enough information for the CBO to attempt a score. Without such a score, it is difficult to conclude whether the plan would achieve balance within a decade. The uncertainties from the currently missing details are enormous. From the conceptual approach, it is probably reasonable to assume that the planned expenditures would likely be less than those under current law. But tax revenue might also be less, perhaps substantially less, than under current law.
My guess is that we'll know more once the actual resolution is brought before the House for consideration.