25

The midyear budget outlook that the White House is releasing today will raise the administration’s outlook for the federal budget deficit over the next 10 years. Previously, the White House maintained that the federal deficits will total $7.1 trillion over the next decade. The new figures bring the administration’s projections to the same level that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has maintained all along which predict deficits of $9 trillion, over 28% higher than the administration’s previous estimate. Last Friday when the news was “leaked” to the press that the midyear budget outlook would be released this week, an unidentified White House official explained to Reuters, “The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year.” Interesting how the White House’s “new” data must have been well-known to the CBO since they aren’t revising their numbers. Taking that President Obama’s staff somehow missed $2 trillion of federal borrowing over the next 10 years in figuring their budget projections, we have plenty of reason to heavily scrutinize President Obama and congressional Democrats’ sales pitches heralding the “benefits” of their health care plans. The revised budget outlook calls President Obama’s case for health care reform to question. If the administration can’t track $2 trillion from their first six months in office, how accurate do we really think their predictions are concerning the costs and effect their health care proposals will have on average Americans?

The White House’s new 10-year deficit projections only include spending that has already been approved. The $9 trillion figure doesn’t factor in a massive expansion of health care entitlements. The health care bills that are currently before Congress are projected to add at least another $1 trillion to the deficit in the next decade according to conservative cost estimates. Nongovernment analysts of the health care proposals have estimated that they will add anywhere from $1.5 trillion to over $3.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years. Entitlement programs always exceed the government’s cost estimates. For example, at its inception, Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990. The true cost of Medicare is well over 10 times the original projections. To give perspective, if the same government agencies underestimate the costs of the current proposals before Congress at the same level as Medicare, the federal deficit will double in ten years, pushing it to roughly 200% of US gross domestic product (GDP).

President Obama’s economic “experts” haven’t established a reputable track record. The stimulus package was supposed to “create or save” 3 to 4 million jobs in two years and prevent unemployment from rising over 8%. Since it was passed in February, unemployment has risen to 9.4% and the nation has shed nearly 2 million more jobs. Last month, the administration celebrated when unemployment dropped from 9.5% to 9.4% even though the number of jobless Americans actually increased. The drop was attributed to the fact that many of the unemployed have become discouraged and given up on their job hunt, thus shrinking the number of unemployed Americans actively seeking employment. The misread on the stimulus coupled with today’s report that the budget experts in the administration left $2 trillion out of their deficit projections that the CBO had recognized all along doesn’t help build confidence in the administration’s forecasting abilities. In the first half of his first year in office, Obama’s administration has committed a $2 trillion error in figuring the deficit. That is almost double the amount that B. Hussein Obama constantly reminds Americans that he inherited from the Bush administration. Did you catch that? In just over six months, the Obama administration has made a miscalculation that adds more to the deficit than George W. Bush accumulated in eight years.

There is no doubt that this new revelation will add a new argument to the opponents of Obama’s plans to reform the American health care system. However, had Congress obeyed Obama, this would have never had a chance to enter the debates. As the White House announced that the midyear review would be delayed until August, Obama was pounding the table demanding Congress get a health care reform bill on his desk before leaving for the August recess. The president made his demands clear throughout the month of July. After returning from a week-long overseas trip, Obama learned that some legislators were hesitant to support many provisions of the bills emerging from various committees. In the American Thinker, Monte Kulingowski cites a speech from the Rose Garden on July 13 where Obama condescendingly warned opponents, "I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone. We are going to get this done. Inaction is not an option. Don't bet against us. We are going to make this thing happen." After the speech, the president met privately with Democrat lawmakers to reinforce his timetable demands. The president must have made his point clear. "There was a strong agreement by everyone in the room that we can get a bill done before the start of the August recess," explained Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking to the Associated Press after the meeting.

B. Hussein Obama’s plan for health care reform was to utilize the same “blitzkrieg legislating” tactics that delivered the stimulus bill to his desk and pushed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill through the House of Representatives in the dead of night. There were no plans to deal with angry constituents at town hall meetings because no one was supposed to read the bill to begin with. Democrat House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, proved this in his speech to the National Press Club Luncheon. Conyers explained on July 27, “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” In his rush to ridicule the simpletons expecting legislators to actually read legislation that would transform 17% of the American economy, Conyers conveniently forgot to mention that he is an attorney. Some people would see a need to slow down and act deliberately if they were working with such complicated material that would significantly impact every one of their constituents. As the polls show, Congress’ approval numbers continue to fall along with President Obama’s. Conyers and his colleagues might want to reassess the futility of reading bills that they don’t understand. Either find someone to explain them or write them more coherently. Don’t just close your eyes and vote.

After seeing the public outrage over the plan he tried to pressure Congress to ram through, President Obama now wants to encourage a “vigorous” debate on health care reform. Just a month ago, this “vigorous” debate was the furthest thing from Obama’s mind. In fact, if he had his way, he would be relaxing in Martha’s Vineyard right now thinking about the songs that future generations of American children will sing about him and his political genius. However, as more time passes and the public familiarizes themselves with the proposals, it becomes clear why Obama was in such a rush.

 

(For more, visit www.donkeyridingcommies.com. Recent posts address MSNBC's distortion of protestors, a Marine giving his representative an earful, and new posts are being added daily. Thanks for reading.)

 

Comments

cardsbadabing
# cardsbadabing
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:25 PM
To quote Ron: " If the administration can’t track $2 trillion from their first six months in office, how accurate do we really think their predictions are concerning the costs and effect their health care proposals will have on average Americans?"

This should be the closing line of a Mastercard commercial. Priceless.
Mark Chilton
# Mark Chilton
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:32 PM
Are we at the point in America when 2 Trillion dollars is an afterthought? A little mistake? It makes me want to puke.
afanger
# afanger
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:58 PM
ron, i sent the link from this article to a libertarian buddy of mine. he is vocally pro nhc. i would love to get your opinion on his thoughts. we have battled a little in the past on healthcare and some other issues. he might be pissed that i did this but hopefully he will get over it since its unanimous. i would like to see him join the debate in your articles, maybe this will work:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Any article referring to President Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" should not be given much weight nor looked to for an understanding of current events.

Hardin is somehow under the impression that President Obama is different that his republican predecessor. In reality, Obama has carried forward many, if not all, of the policies inacted during the previous administration. History has shown that Reagan>Bush 1>Bush 2 were guilty of "deficit spending". Obama has yet to pass any substantial legislation that contributes any more to the deficit than Bush. One of the few facts found in this article is Hardin's mentioning that the CBO has indicated that the "Public Option" will add to the budget deficit. This is precisely why any health care reform not focused on a Single Payer health care system will continue to not address the looming concern: if we do nothing, health care costs will continue to rise and taxes will have to be increased to pay for these costs.
st. louisville cards
# st. louisville cards
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21 PM
Wait....Afanger, did I read that wrong or does your friend claim to be a libertarian and he is advocating FOR a single payer system? Is your friend also a vegetarian who clubs baby seals, hunts whales and eats veal?

A single payer system does little or nothing to lower the cost of health care and the lack of competition leads to raised costs. The current problem with our health care system is it is an oligopoly, the only thing worse than that is a monopoly....which for some illogical reason is the way some people want to go.
Your friend did get one thing right, Republicans need to be held accountable for the growth of federal power as much as the democrats. When the pendulum swings back to the Republicans we'll see if people are being hypocrits.
Ron Hardin
# Ron Hardin
Friday, August 28, 2009 12:55 AM
afanger-
Sorry for the delay in responding. Here’s the rebuttal to your friend’s email:
First, anyone who identifies their political ideology as “libertarian” but supports nationalized health care should really take the time to reexamine the meaning of libertarian. Even though they share the first four letters, liberalism and libertarianism are not the same. One wants government out of every aspect possible of choices individuals make in their own lives, the other wants government to find every area possible to direct. I’ll leave it up to you to guess which one is which. Also, anyone who shrieks at the sight of Obama’s middle name probably can’t be trusted to know about any events, current or past. (If he voted for Obama while claiming to be a libertarian, I think my point is more than proven.)
Nothing I have ever written vindicated George W. Bush for the large deficits he accumulated over his two terms in office. Quite ignorantly, this person chose to jump on the Obama talking points bandwagon by assuming that anyone now criticizing Obama about excessive spending must have been copacetic during Bush’s spending sprees. That’s completely false and if you read through everything I have written for InsideSTL.com or any of my other two sites, you won’t find me condoning Bush’s spending anywhere. With that said, let’s compare the deficits under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to Obama’s first seven months in office. Under Reagan, deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP. During the worst year under Reagan, the deficit was 6% of GDP. Under George W. Bush, deficits averaged 2% of GDP with the worst year bringing deficits of 3.6% of GDP. With that said, from 2009 through 2016, Obama will run average deficits of 6.3% of GDP with a worst case scenario of 13% and best case scenario of 3.9%. These numbers are actually based on the rosy scenario numbers using June’s budget numbers as the baseline instead of the August numbers which were just revised that would make these percentages increase. Not only has Obama added about $1.5 trillion since taking office, ($787 billion before interest payments for “stimulus,” $410 billion reconciliation (the omnibus spending bill that contained 9,000 earmarks and increased federal discretionary spending by about 8% from last year, Obama claimed it was leftover from the Bush administration but Congress waited until Obama took office to load it full of goodies), and another $350 billion for a second round of TARP) he is going to maintain this level of borrowing as far as the eye can see. Deficits next year will near $2 trillion and that’s without any health care reform which is expected to cost at least $1 trillion according to CBO. (As article said, an entitlement program as large as Obama’s health care reform is definitely going to greatly exceed estimates, just as every entitlement program has throughout the nation’s history.) In 2019, again based on the rosy numbers, the deficit will be 5.6% of GDP and public debt will be a peacetime record of 82% of GDP.
It’s always a bad sign when the best defense Obama supporters have for his boneheaded policies is to point out that Bush did it too. However, as far as deficits are concerned, so far Obama’s spending takes deficits to a level the nation hasn’t seen since the Civil War and WWII. Obama is making Bush look like freaking Ron Paul.
As far as the health care goes, I’ve never said that health care doesn’t need to be reformed. All I’ve said is that the current proposals are only going to compound the current problems. (Tell me, is your friend B. Hussein Obama? It’s okay, you can tell me. I ask because Obama constantly accuses anyone debating the merits of his plan of just not wanting to do anything to address the current problems.) Basically, Obama asserts that his “solutions” are the only ones available when there have been several Republican proposals submitted to Congress that would do a much better job at addressing the problems of access and increasing medical costs. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines to create national pools would be a huge help. Also, currently, employees who receive insurance through their employer get a tax break on their premiums which are paid with pre-tax dollars. If you buy your own insurance or are self-employed, or retired, you don’t get this break. This needs to end. Breaking the bind between employers and insurance would go a long way to help the problems because we wouldn’t have people worried that if they lose their jobs they would lose their insurance. Currently, if you don’t like the way your insurance company treats you and you get insurance through your employer, you don’t have any real options but to stick with them. By ending the employer-based insurance, those “evil” insurance companies would have to actually compete to keep patients because if they hassled too many of their customers, they would lose the business to competitors. Other free market solutions exist such as higher deductable plans for younger, healthier individuals who can then contribute tax-free to a health savings account. (This isn’t a flexible spending account where you lose whatever money you contribute but don’t use in a fiscal year. HSA’s rollover leftover money year-to-year so in years where a person is healthy, they don’t use as much of the HSA money so it’s there in years that they are sicker. Currently companies combine the higher deductible plans with company contributions to employee’s HSA’s to cover the higher deductibles. The HSA money stays with the employee even if they stop working for the employer who made the contributions. Therefore, employees have incentive to actually watch their health expenses because it benefits them to keep their own money in their own HSA. After making the changes, government can then work out formulas to subsidize private policies for the individuals too poor to purchase it on their own or the “chronically uninsured.” (FYI – for the money spent on the non-stimulating economic stimulus bill, the nation’s chronically uninsured could have been privately insured for ten years.) It’s not heartless and it greatly benefits to the roughly 80% of Americans currently happy with their insurance and health care. Also, by moving towards private insurance, the government would be subsidizing private insurance policies instead of having to pay for every medical procedure and test. This would be a major step to addressing the $35 trillion in unfunded obligations in Medicare.
The proposals above are only a few of the current alternatives put forth by Republicans in the House and Senate and there is also a bipartisan bill up for consideration. However, since the Democrats are in complete control and won’t let these proposals come to the floor for a debate, they might as well not even exist. Since the large majorities are being pressured to vote through Obama’s version of reform, the current issue is to ensure that both the House and Senate bills are defeated. They will bankrupt the nation while granting government more control over every individual’s life than they should ever be trusted with. Obama is looking to expand the status quo to cover everyone and, as he constantly reminds us, the current Medicare and Medicaid systems are on unsustainable paths.
Sorry for such a long answer, but anyone who reads my articles often enough should be familiar with this trend by now. I look forward to seeing a new reader joining the debate. Thanks for recruiting more "fans" to bicker with every week.\

Ron
Ron Hardin
# Ron Hardin
Friday, August 28, 2009 1:21 AM
Just an FYI - The system described in my diatribe of high deductible insurance combined with HSA's are the current system that Whole Foods Market uses to insure all of their employees who work 30 or more hours a week which equals 89% of their workforce. This is also the system that led to Obamatons boycotting the company.

Whole Food's insurance pays 100% of claims after the deductibles are paid. To cover the high deductibles, Whole Foods deposits $1,800 into the employees' HSA's.

Gee, expanding coverage to almost 90% of employees while lowering costs for the company and workers who don't have to pay as much in monthly premiums for full-coverge, where have I heard those objectives? More importantly, what kind of evil bastard is running Whole Foods?
afanger
# afanger
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:57 AM
thanks ron.

i just looked closer and found out this guy considers himself a libertarian socialist.... maybe that explains it!

either way, good writing as always. i love it when people get pissed at words like b hussein obama.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.