Here is one we are watching closely:
H.R. 5069 would allow the Department of the Interior (DOI) to raise the price charged for Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (referred to as federal duck stamps). Federal duck stamps are annual permits sold by the federal government to hunt migratory waterfowl. The stamps also allow entry to National Wildlife Refuges that charge entrance fees. Sales proceeds are used to acquire wetlands for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5069 would reduce the deficit by $5 million over the 2015-2024 period. Collections from the sale of duck stamps are recorded in the budget as revenues, deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF), and later spent. Because the bill would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. In addition, we estimate that implementing the bill would have no significant effect on discretionary spending.
H.R. 5069 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
By increasing the annual fee for duck stamps, H.R. 5069 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on individuals required to obtain the stamp as a federal permit to hunt migratory waterfowl. Based on information from gaming officials at DOI, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of complying with the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold for private sector mandates ($152 million in 2014, adjusted annually for inflation).
via www.cbo.gov
If the federal government does manage to raise revenue it is only because almost all of the revenue will be used to buy wetland habitat, effectively scaling the no-new-taxes-no-matter-the-need constraint that we find ourselves in.
This part of the cost estimate got me to thinking [pdf]:
H.R. 5069 would increase the price of federal duck stamps from $15 to $25 for an annual permit. Based on information provided by DOI, CBO estimates that federal revenues would increase by $119 million over the 2015-2024 period. That estimate includes a reduction in the number of stamps sold compared with the number that would be sold at a price of $15, reflecting CBO’s assessment of the effects of prior stamp price increases.
I'm not sure about the "CBO's assessment of the effects of prior stamp price increases" since the two most recent duck stamp price increases, $10 to $12.50 in 1989-90 and $12.50 to $15 in 1991-92, have been followed by increases in sales (the 1987-88 increase from $7.50 to $10 led a 7.3% decrease in sales, an elasticity of -0.22; you can get the data here).
It would be interesting to know how price sensitive the CBO thinks waterfowl hunters are. In a sport that requires thousands of dollars of equipment, I wonder how much a $10 increase would have on the participation decision. The FWS says that 1,517,647 duck stamps were sold in 2011-12 (pdf). If revenues increase by $13 million annual, my back of the envelope calculation suggests that they think they'll sell 1.42 million stamps.*
Most (I say most because I don't read them all, I don't even read a few, but all that I've read have done this) of the CBO's "cost analyses" are actually benefit-cost analyses where market prices are assumed constant. Under this assumption the benefits of a government program is the government revenue and the cost is the government expenditures. This reason I find this one interesting is that the policy is a price increase so that the one thing that is missing is the lost consumer surplus, which I estimate is about $400,000.*
The Senate bill (S. 1865) would raise the price to $30 after five years of $25 and revenues are estimated to increase by $8 million. I'll leave these calculations as an exercise (i.e., I can't figure out why sales do up, unless we are adding a population trend).
*Here is my logic (invoking ceteris paribus at the outset): Let's say that 1.5 million duck stamps are sold. At a price of $15 that is revenue of $22.5 million (which is the correct order of magnitude). Given a downward sloping linear demand revenue will rise by area a and fall by area e. The CBO estimates that the revenue increase (a - e) will equal $13 million suggesting, logically, inelastic demand (the picture is not to scale!). Based on this it looks like 1.42 million duck stamps are expected to be sold (i.e., 1.42 = [25.5+13]/25). These numbers suggest an elasticity of -0.08 which is more inelastic than the 1987-88 experience.
The only cost that is not included in this calculation is the lost consumer surplus from area b. Area b is equal to $400,000. However, all is not lost because the waterfowl hunters that remain in the market will likely take more visits to wildlife refuges with more habitat, increasing consumer surplus [what am I missing?].
