CBO rains on Obama’s parade: $1.5 Trillion deficit for 2011

Last night Obama gave his second State of the Union address chock full of new “investment” [spending] ideas.  Today the CBO is raining all over that parade with some very sobering news.

For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The deficits in CBO's baseline projections drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections, however, are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law. Consequently, they understate the budget deficits that would occur if many policies currently in place were continued, rather than allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.

We hear it every day from both sides of the political spectrum that the current deficits we are running are unsustainable. This is why the spending freeze Obama announced last night seems so reckless and irresponsible.   

I have little doubt that this sobering bit of news from the CBO will not be heeded by the Obama administration.  As Nile Gardnier from The Telegraph puts it, [t]he Obama Presidency remains in a dangerous state of denial. God help us.

 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Congressional Budget Office

Via: The Telegraph

CBO revises the cost of ObamaCare … $115 billion upwards

Just a little more proof that the Democrats snookered us on ObamaCare. 

Politico: Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion. […]

The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

The CBO estimated in March that the gross cost of the overhaul would be $940 billion over 10 years. The net cost was estimated at $788 billion over 10 years. But the group cautioned that it couldn’t make an estimate of the discretionary costs without more time and information.

Think back to the big rush job with having to passing ObamaCare on a Sunday. Considering that ObamaCare doesn’t really kick in until 2014, why couldn’t we have waited for these figures? The reason is that the Dems knew over time, the real cost of ObamaCare would have been revealed by the CBO and Medicare’s actuaries. The whole rush, rush, rush crap was just so the Dems could get away with their lies. 

I wonder if in addition to suing over the individual mandate, we could sue for false representation?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

CBO: Debt to rise to 90% of GDP

As everyone on the left rejoices over socialize medicine, I wonder if any of them are taking the time to think about the price tag? 

From The Washington Times: President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

[SNIP]

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates. 

We all know that the Democrats gave the CBO ridiculous assumptions to bring the price tag of ObamaCare in under $1 trillion. So, you just know that this figure is going to have to be revised upwards. Charles Krauthammer believes that Obama’s Deficit Commission is just a rouse to introduce the Value Added Tax (VAT) in order to pay for all of this. If that hideous tax is enacted, even Peggy The Moocher will feel the pinch.

The Jawa Report offers us a little reminder of the early days of Hope and Change:

Enjoy this trip down memory lane, and try not to laugh (emphasis on "smarter government"): 

I cannot wait to vote out these irresponsible spendaholics.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Washington Times

Mystery Memo reveals Democrats deception on CBO score

Yesterday the memo below is said to have been making the rounds among Democrats. The memo clearly spells out how to deceive the public regarding the “doctor fix” and details behind the CBO score. 

 We cannot emphasize enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and the number of Americans covered. ... 

Second, most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a "doc fix." Some Republicans have repeated CBO's November 18 letter that says "the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified ... to avoid reduction in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress." The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So, again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. ...

As most health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians support for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest it complicate the last critical push to health care reform.

DemHCMemo -

While we all know that the Democrats handed the CBO completely unrealistic assumptions and other tricks to make sure they got back numbers that make ObamaCare look like it reduces the deficit, it is quite another thing to see them admit it in black and white. Democrats took out the doctor fix because if it was included, they could not show ObamaCare reducing the deficit. Instead, they will handle the doctor fix separately (it will still grow the deficit mind you).

Democrats are now denying that the memo is theirs. They are saying it is a GOP Hoax. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air says he got confirmation that the memo does exist and was being passed around on the Hill, but he cannot say if it came from Republicans or Democrats.

Wherever it came from, there is a lot of truth to it. Throughout the final stretches of health care debate, I have not seen a single Democrat on television get into the nitty gritty details of ObamaCare or the CBO numbers. They do not talk about the taxes, the new IRS agents, or the details of the mandates or anything else. Even Obama stayed away from any real details when Bret Baier grilled him. So it would be quite believable that this memo is actually theirs. I am sure we will find out one way or another where the memo really came from, but will we find out before the big vote?

Further reading can be found at PowerLine, The Other McCain and Conservatives 4 Palin.

Via: Memorandum

Via: Talking Points Memo

Via: Big Government 

Via: Hot Air

Is this the latest CBO score?

NOTE: I had to re-do this post,  I was initially suckered into believing these were the actual CBO numbers (Look before you leap Cliff, you are dealing with desperate Democrats)


The Democrats are touting numbers that are supposed to have come from the CBO.  As of yet, the CBO has NOT officially released numbers. Democrats are saying CBO estimates a price tag of $940 billion over 10 years with a deficit reduction of $130 billion over the same time.

Needless to say the Democrats are giddy and can now begin the 72 hour count down to a vote. 

Democrats are lauding a CBO report that found their healthcare package will cut the deficit by $130 billion. 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hailed the figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office during a meeting with a group of reporters on Thursday morning and said the House would vote on Sunday. 

He said House Democrats had crafted a bill that would amount to the largest deficit reduction package in more than 15 years.

“We think the numbers are now pretty well set from CBO,” Hoyer said.  “We think it will post the largest deficit reduction of any bill that we’ve adopted in the Congress since 1993.” 

"We are absolutely giddy" about the score, said Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on Fox News Thursday. About the deficit reduction figures, he added "This is great news for the American people." 

This is almost like some cruel joke. Here we are today carrying a debt of $14 trillion dollars and these imbeciles are giddy about reducing that debt by $130 billion over 10 years. That isn’t even enough to keep up with the interest payments. To make matters worse, we all know that the assumptions given to the CBO are rigged.

Despite the obviously inadequate amount of deficit reduction, these numbers will act like a fig leave for “fiscally conservative” Democrats so they can vote for this monstrosity. 

H/T to Torrey Spears for bringing the error to my attention.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Hill

CBO: Obama’s deficits worse than predicted

Just like the stimulus not working as advertised, the deficit projections from the Obama administration as equally flawed.  The Congressional Budget Office released new projections yesterday and they paint an even worse picture than before.  Look at 2020, the number as twice as bad as predicted.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted byPresident Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.

The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House. 

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that these numbers will not lead to a happy ending. It also does not take a rocket scientist to understand that we simply cannot afford a new $1 trillion health care entitlement [deficit neutral my behind].

The only way to bring this debt under control is to remove the spend thrifts and elect politician with the cojones to start cutting everything, and I do mean everything.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Associated Press

CBO And JCT Score The So-Called Baucus “Bill”

As many of you no doubt heard, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released their scoring on the so-called Baucus “Bill”.  The trick here is that there really is no bill. What the Senate Finance Committee submitted was not an actual bill but rather the concepts they have been working on. NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE was submitted.  In other words one can suggest concepts A, B and C and then turn around and write legislation for X, Y and Z.


William Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion describes it best: 

The CBO scored the concepts described by the Baucus Committee. There is no legislative text. None. Baucus and his Democratic colleagues refused to reduce their concepts to actual legislation prior to a vote. Here is the CBO's disclaimer:

CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.

The Baucus Concepts are disasterous, but that's for another post. For this post, let me get across a simple concept: THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL. 

Sounds deceptive you say? Well it is. William Jacobson goes on to describe the deception: 

The actual legislation will be drafted in secret by Harry Reid and a few other people, including staffers whose names and political connections you never will know, and the resulting legislation will be rammed through the Senate and House before anyone gets to read and analyze it. 

Now you know why they do not want to post the legislation on the Internet 72 hours before they vote because they are planning a bait and switch. 


So what were the concepts that the CBO and JCT scored?  From the CBO’s Director’s blog: 

Among other things, the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code. 

These are very bad concepts all around; you can almost see the unintended consequences that will result from them.
What did the CBO and JCT find from these concepts? Again from the Director’s blog: [emphasis added, mine] 

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty. 

First and foremost pay close attention to the very last line. That being said, $81 billion is not even a spit in the bucket compared to the $12 TRILLON in debt we will be carrying over the same time period. If Obama’s stated goal was to significantly reduce health care costs in order to lower the deficit, then these concepts are an Epic Fail!  Secondly, I don’t buy the $829 billion price tag for a hot second. How can anyone add millions more to the system, increase the quality of care and reduce costs all at the same time? The whole thing is BS wrapped up in a delusional fantasy.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CBO Director’s Blog

Via: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion