Did the CBO deliberately less inform the congress?

[Supposn]

Did the Congressional Budget Office deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?
Concerning Congressional Budget Office’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate:

To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.
The applicable minimum rate directly or (due to employers’ wage differential practices), almost directly affects all lower wage rates, earnings of those rates, and unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of those rates.

Decades after enacting modifications of its purchasing power, it indirectly affects social security, or long-term disability, or pensions incomes and benefits indirectly based upon prior low-wage rate earnings. It has extremely little or no affect upon any other families’ incomes or benefits.

The CBO’s reports regarding the federal minim wage rate employ U.S. census Bureau’s brackets of families’ total incomes ratios to their poverty thresholds, to differentiate between families of different sizes and total incomes. But the effects of the federal minimum wage rate upon families of similar sizes and poverty thresholds, can differ greatly due to proportional differences of those families’ incomes and benefits categories.

Without at very least providing the 2025 projected proportional changes of family’s total incomes derived directly from wages, CBO’s analysis of the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” was not informative, but it also was not the condemnation that opponents of minimum wage rates had hoped for. Possibly the CBO was directed or chose not to consider proportions of wages within total incomes and benefits to deliberately less inform our U.S. Congress and the public?
Respectfully, Supposn

[John Galt]

so because it ended up saying something was modest, it consequently deliberately misinformed?