Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
I see you've used the typical buzz words: "deficit", "tax increases", and "government".
But you fail to point out how the C.B.O. scored this bill and said it will reduce the deficit by, oh, $130 billion in the first 10 years and a little of a trillion in the second ten years.
The Stimulus Bill, a third of which was tax cuts, contained one of the largest tax cuts in history for the middle class. Or the jobs bill, which also passed under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, contains another $15-17 billion in tax breaks.
So the "tax and spend" spin just doesn't square with the major pieces of legislations that Nancy Pelosi has steered through the House. It just doesn't.
|
I see you've used the typical response the left uses when hit with facts. And a nice job almost quoting Pelosi verbatim on the CBO score.
Some points about the CBO scoring, first and foremost the CBO can only evaulate the bill and conditions it is told to evaluate, it cannot take any other factor into consideration. So when the Dems knowingly manipulate what's sent to CBO, you get the figures you mentioned. Doo-doo in, Doo-doo out.
Let's look at reality and what wasn't scored by CBO, such as:
– Exclusion of the doc fix. The “doc fix,” which repeals a $371 billion Medicare cut for physician fees, is rolled into a separate bill. Lawmakers must remember: just because it’s not included in the official health bill doesn’t mean it doesn’t count as real spending.
– Double-counted savings from the CLASS Act. The CLASS Act included in the bill creates a new entitlement for which beneficiaries would pay premiums upfront for benefits received further down the road.
Marcus explains: “Of the $138 billion saved in the first 10 years, $70 billion represents premiums collected for a new long-term-care program, money the government will have to pay in benefits later.” The revenue from the CLASS Act thus represents a false offset to other new spending.
– Dubious savings from Medicare. The bill contains billions in cuts to Medicare to offset other costs.
As Marcus points out, “The CBO is required to assume that Congress will do what it promises”, making the point that politically unpopular spending cuts are unlikely to ever come to fruition—as best evidenced by the “doc fix” that occurs every year, adding to the deficit.
– A false 10-year cost window. CBO scored the first 10 years of enactment of the bill, which includes several years of raising revenue and fewer years of expenses.
According to budget expert James Capretta, “Over a full ten years of implementation, the cost of the new entitlement spending would reach $2.5 trillion, at least, not $1 trillion as advertised by the White House.”
The reconciliation package also includes new gimmicks and questionable sources of revenue:
– Delay of an unpopular tax. Under the reconciliation bill, the excise tax on high cost plans would be implemented in 2018, thus reducing the total ten year revenues from the projected $149 billion under the Senate bill to just $32 billion. More interestingly, the reconciliation bill would index the application of the tax to growth in the Consumer Price Index (general inflation), which means that more and more middle class Americans would be affected by the tax once its collection began in 2018. Kicking this tax down the road to a future President and Congress portrays the unwillingness of lawmakers to collect it.
Marcus questions, “Will the tax really be collected…long after many of those voting for it will have left office, long after the benefits it is helping to finance have kicked in?”
– Decreased value of subsidies. Says Capretta, “to jury-rig “long-term deficit reduction,” the latest plan would first increase the premium assistance subsidies paid to low and moderate wage families above the levels in the Senate-passed bill, but then index their value to something below the growth in premiums to give the appearance of deficit reduction in the decade after 2019.”
Obamacare’s Delusional Deficit Reduction Claims | Fix Health Care Policy
When a Washington Post writer is casting doubt on the CBO numbers, I wouldn't be running them up the flag pole.
Ruth Marcus - On health reform's price tag, score one for skepticism
Also, this bill has to be paid for somehow even if Pelosi claims it's defecit neutral (IT'S NOT). The bill is paid for by reductions in services/benefits and tax increases or tax penalties. Which again, a solid majority of the American people don't want.
And the Stimulus, that was the bill that was going to keep unemployment below 8% and "save or create" over 2M jobs, right? Didn't the U.S. economy lose 4M jobs since the beginning of 2009 and overall unemployment is still in the high 9s. All while slamming the American taxpayer (or rather our kids & grandkids) with another $800B in debt. I don't see where any of the outlays below created any jobs, and these were 80% of ARRA actual outlays.
"Five programs accounted for more than 80 percent of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (which makes grants to state and local governments, mostly to maintain funding levels for education), and student financial aid. Higher federal matching rates for Medicaid accounted for $32 billion; additional payments for unemployment benefits cost $27 billion; Social Security beneficiaries received payments of $13 billion; spending through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund added $12 billion; and direct assistance to college students (mostly for Pell grants) added $7 billion."
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
As far as the second jobs bill, again if a left leaning media outlet is criticizing it, it probably ain't good:
Obama's disco-era jobs bill - Feb. 15, 2010
The Pelosi led House bears major responsibility in the ballooning of the federal deficit. Tax and Spend....the shoe sure looks like it fits.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...ficit_2010.jpg