Posts Tagged ‘CBO’

ObamaCare Is A Death Panel For Jobs

February 11, 2011

Let’s call ObamaCare what it is: a death panel for jobs.

Oh, ObamaCare will become a death panel for senior citizens, too.  Don’t get me wrong.  First ObamaCare will take over the health care system.  Then it will poison the entire economy.  Tax collections will go down 1) because unemployed people don’t pay taxes; and 2) because unemployment people actually consume taxpayer dollars.  But ObamaCare will force America to spend trillions of extra dollars.  And then as a result of the ensuing desperate times ObamaCare will create, government bureaucrats will start having to make decisions as to who lives and who dies.

Here are the facts:

CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers
2:37 PM, Feb 10, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued…that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”…

[…]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we’ll — and Dr. Elmendorf — and we’ll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to — before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe — or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in ’20-’21.  That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct? 

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that…employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000.

If history is any guide, the CBO is off by a factor of at least ten.  So it will probably be more like 8 million jobs than 800,000.  But it’s really much worse than that.  Our economy is vulnerable.  Bad news has a way of unleashing negative consequences that go far beyond and effect that something taken in total isolation would produce.

This 800,000 – or more probably 8 million – is just chicken feed.  It is part of a much larger Obama death panel for jobs that has already been underway for some time.  As Business Insider puts it:

“Analysis of weekly unemployment data and covered employees shows that 5,977,844 benefit paying jobs have been lost in the last year.”

Here’s the world of hurt Obama has put America in a picture:

That is a very steep slide into a very dark hole.  And it is entirely due to the toxic effects of Obama and the Democrat Party on our economy and on our way of life.

Our economy is going to be a victim of the Obama death panel.  Unless its blatant unconstitutionality doesn’t get this 2,600-page piece of treason overturned first.

“God damn America” is upon us.

The Worm Is Beginning To Turn On ObamaCare

January 21, 2011

Things are rapidly getting out of hand for ObamaCare.

The House just voted to repeal it with a bipartisan vote of 245-189 (with three Democrats joining all the Republicans).

For the record, the vote in favor of repealing ObamaCare was far higher than the vote to pass the damn thing (219 – barely above the minimum necessary for passage).

26 states are now officially on board with Florida to challenge ObamaCare in federal court.  The Florida State Attorney General said last night on Fox News’ “Greta” program that 2 more states have promised that they will be on board, and she has been in talks with several other states.

More than half the states now want ObamaCare tossed into the trash where it belongs.

Democrats and the mainstream media have routinely sneered about what a useless and time-wasting “symbolic” gesture this vote was.  One can only wonder: during the dark and dreadful reign of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority during the last two years, more than 400 bills were passed that were not taken up in the Senate.  And that was during a period in which Democrats RAN the Senate.  Did the Democrats and the mainstream media come unglued over those “time wasting gestures”????  I don’t think so.

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a long list of new tax hikes that ObamaCare is burdening the US economy with – in direct contradiction to Obama’s incredibly deceitful promise that “your taxes won’t go up one dime.”

These taxes include:

  1. Individual Mandate Excise Tax
  2. Employer Mandate Tax
  3. Surtax on Investment Income
  4. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
  5. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
  6. Medicine Cabinet Tax
  7. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
  8. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”
  9. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
  10. Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
  11. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
  12. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
  13. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
  14. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
  15. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
  16. Tax on Health Insurers
  17. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
  18. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2
  19. Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting
  20. “Black liquor” tax hike
  21. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”

And new studies are demonstrating that ObamaCare is a job murderer:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf recently spoke at the University of Southern California about the economic impact of Obamacare. He predicts that Obamacare will further depress the nation’s employment picture.

CBO’s analysis of Obamacare predicts that it will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by roughly half a percent. Elmendorf states that this impact will be small, but in reality the impact is small only in relative terms. For instance, a half-percent loss in jobs in the American economy today would translate into about 750,000 additional Americans losing work.

And the NFIB estimate is even more dismal:

Just as serious for the economy is the fact that Obamacare will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy. A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the employer mandate  could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.

And the Democrats loaded up ObamaCare with so many faulty assumptions that the actual numbers of jobs destroyed will undoubtedly be worse.

Democrats played all kinds of gimmicks to get a CBO score that created the illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.  Because Democrats in office agree with fellow liberal Bill Maher’s take on the American people:

“Or take the health care debate we’re presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and “listen to their constituents.” An urge they should resist because their constituents don’t know anything.”

But even “stupid” people are smart enough to know that claiming that ObamaCare will ADD 35 million people to the health care rolls and actually cost LESS MONEY is itself a stupid claim.  They may not understand just how despicably deceitful Democrats were in manufacturing the numbers to get the CBO score (such as taxing ten years and only giving benefits for 6 years; such as double counting savings from revenue sources such as Medicare and Social Security; such as imposing all kinds of taxes that nobody knew about when this monstrosity was passed; omitting the so-called “doctor fix”, etc.), but they know something is very wrong.

Most Americans also know what the overwhelming majority of doctors know:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.

The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.

“When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve,” Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.

The worm is indeed beginning to turn on ObamaCare, indeed.

And maybe the worm is beginning to turn inside Obama’s scrawny gut, too.

CBO Reveals That ObamaCare Will INCREASE Prescription Drug Prices

November 7, 2010

It’s getting harder and harder to find something about ObamaCare that turns out not to have been a complete load of crap.

U.S. Rep. Ryan: CBO confirms Obamacare will increase drug prices
11/4/2010

In letter to Ranking Member Ryan, CBO highlights the latest health care broken promise

WASHINGTON – In response to a request from House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirmed that President Obama’s massive health care law will increase prescription drug prices. The CBO confirms the range of onerous restrictions and requirements will drive health care costs up, at odds with the claims made by its proponents. CBO’s letter specifies that manufacturers will have an incentive to raise drug prices and that, as a result, health care costs will increase for some seniors and for those who are uninsured.

In response to the findings, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

“On Tuesday, the American electorate forcefully repudiated President Obama’s agenda, including his massive health care overhaul. Today, the Congressional Budget Office refuted President Obama’s claims, making clear that his policies will drive health care costs up, not down. Especially troubling for many seniors is the news that their prescription drug costs and premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. I will continue to work to repeal this deeply flawed overhaul, advancing instead patient-centered health care reform and reforms to secure Medicare for current and future generations.”

Highlights from the CBO’s letter to Ranking Member Ryan:

“[The] increase in prices would make federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions…”

“The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs by about 1 percent. Those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates.”

“The premiums of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices, so the premiums paid by beneficiaries will increase slightly.”

To read CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s Letter to Ranking Member Paul Ryan:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11674/11-04-Drug_Pricing.pdf

Oops.

ObamaCare and Obama both translate to “one big ass mistake, America.”

Democrats Want More Than Your Share Of Your Wages. And More. And More.

May 24, 2010

Are we taxed enough as Americans?  Should we be outraged over the level of taxation?  Read this and tell me why you shouldn’t be.  And explain to me why the Democrats are right in confiscating more and more of Americans’ property, and Republicans are wrong in trying to allow citizens to hold on to more of what they earn:

The Government’s Share Of Your Paycheck
Is Bigger Than Your Share

Hard work is good for you.  It is better for the government.

Here is the scenario:  A musical composer applied for a job with a theatrical production company to write the music and lyrics for a new stage production.  The arrangement was, lyrics and music and all artistic rights in return for a compensation package of $100,000. The composer agreed, thinking this would give him an opportunity to purchase that very special collector’s automobile he had been dreaming about for years and is now available for $95,000.

At the end of his contract the production company was happy with the composer’s work and wrote the promised check to the composer’s financial manager.  Upon the manager’s presentation of the composer’s paycheck, the composer became very angry and retorted “They promised me $100,000 and this check is for only $49,560 what happened to the rest of the money.”

The financial manager replied, “The rest of the money went for taxes.  Your government has determined they are entitled to share in the fruits of your labors.  You were paid $100,000 and that placed you in the federal 28% tax bracket so that left you with $72,000.  Then we had to withhold federal self-employment FICA taxes of 12.4% and medicare taxes of 5.8% and those taxes totaled another 18.2% or $18,200 so that left you with $53,800.  And, the State of Arizona’s share of your labors is another 4.24% or $4,240 so that left you with $49,560.  Here’s your check, go spend it wisely.”

Well, there goes my dream of the special collector’s car so I guess I will have to settle for a new Cadillac that I can purchase in these troubled times for $45,000 and I will have nearly $5,000 left over which will be enough for my wife and me to drive from Phoenix to San Diego in our brand-new car and purchase a cruise on the Mexican Riviera. Wine, dine and sunshine.  Life is good.

Off to the Cadillac dealer and after selecting the model and options and negotiating the price to $45,000 the composer said “I’ll take it.  Hooray!”

The dealer handed the bill to the composer for $49,503.  The composer shouted “What?  We agreed on $45,000.  There goes my cruise”  The Cadillac dealer said “Arizona is entitled to share in the fruits of your labors and their share of your purchase is State, County and City sales taxes of 8.3%, or $3,735 and Registration and License fees of $768 for a total Arizona share of $4,503 and the dealer charges $50 as a documentation fee bringing the total purchase price to $49,553.  Here is a check for $7.00 as change for the $49,560 check you gave us.  Go spend it wisely.”

This might be a true story.  Somewhere in this vast country a similar scenario has happened.

Now, let’s look at the big picture.  A man worked and earned $100,000 and governments took $50,440 right off the top leaving the worker with $49,560 to spend.  When he spent it, governments grabbed another $4,503 in additional taxes.  This is a total of $54,947 (or 55%) of this worker’s earnings.  Plus, do not forget, to have $4.500 left over to pay the state governments their share of his purchase, the worker had to earn $9,000 BEFORE income taxes.  Should you wish to purchase a $45,000 automobile, you must earn $100,000 to do so.

Your governments tax you when you earn money and tax you when you spend money.  And, if you do not spend it, they will tax your estate when you die.  When the George Bush tax cuts expire next year and the Death Tax returns to 55%, your government will have taxed the first 50% when you earned it, and then grab the remaining 50% when you die.

And the Obama Democrats want more!

It never occurs to the government to stop spending.

That’s the way I see it.
July 17, 2009

This is the kind of thing that applies in virtually every sphere under the sun.  Take gasoline taxes.  Did you know that the government takes twice the dollars in gasoline sales taxes than the oil companies do in profits?  And do you know who pays that? You better know, you sucker; because it’s YOU.  The oil companies pass on all the taxes imposed by Democrats to you, the quintessential resident sap.  Every single time the government imposes taxes on businesses, those business pass those taxes on to you in the form of higher prices.

Another thing that is interesting emerges from this paragraph on the states with the highest state income taxes.  The author uses Arizona, presumably because he is from that state.  But Arizona has a measly 4.24% tax rate.  If he wanted to really make his case, he would have used a different state with a higher tax rate:

New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts.  New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%.  The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%).

What is interesting and informative is every single one of those ten states with the highest tax rates – every single one – is a Democrat state that voted for Barack Obama.

How do liberals define stealing?  If the government seizes my property, just because it has the power to do so, how is that not stealing?  How is it not stealing when the welfare-wanting masses vote to seize the assets of people who obtained their wealth through hard work and sound investment while they were sitting on the couch in front of the boob tube and pissing their money away with compulsive buying?

Another thing that should be pointed out is that Americans – even BEFORE the November 2008 election that gave us Barack Obama to go along with overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress – believe that higher taxes hurt the economy by reducing both revenues and jobs.

It’s simply amazing how false promises and demagogic accusations have managed to sway people to vote against their values – and for people who will undermine those values.

Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”  In voting for Democrat total control, the American people essentially decided to send the United States crashing down.

As much as Democrats shrilly demagogued the Bush spending (which actually WAS outrageous), they are now entirely responsible for spending which utterly dwarfs anything Bush ever dreamed of imposing.

Consider that Obama spent more in just 20 months in office than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

Incredibly, I routinely continue to hear Democrat politicians blame Bush for his spending – which is tantamount to these Democrats admitting that they are hypocrites, liars, and absolute demagogues.

And where does it end?

With the American experiment in a democratic republic going the way of the Dodo bird.

We voted to destroy ourselves by spending ourselves into bankruptcy and economy collapse.  And Obama has been hard at work bringing that “hope and change” about.  And all it takes to understand WHY this outcome is actually “hope and change” is the realization that a great many liberal “intellectuals” have yearned for the destruction of the United States of America for decades.

There’s little question that the anvil will fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in.  Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.” And most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very far off? A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

This massive spending under Obama and Democrats merely continues a trend that has been going on for decades: when you look at Congress’ spending when Democrats have been in control versus when Republicans have been in control over the last thirty years, you find that Democrat Congresses have accumulated 2.5 TIMES the debt that Republican Congress’ have.

Which is why Rep. Eric Cantor was right when he said:

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Minority Whip) on ABC’s “This Week”:
“If you look at the kind of deficit that we’ve incurred over the last three years that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, 60% of the overall deficit from the last ten years has occurred in that period. And frankly with the incurrence of the debt, we’ve seen very little result. That’s why we think we ought to choose another way.”

But we didn’t go the Republican way: we went the Democrats’ way.  And it should be rather obvious by now that it was the WRONG WAY.

And so the day is soon coming when Americans will be called upon to support massive tax increases such that the United States has never seen in its entire history, or else go completely broke and go the way of Greece.  But of course it will have been high government taxation and even higher government spending that broke us to begin with.

Liberals are going to continue to steal from the classes that they demonize – as befits the “from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-need” communists they quintessentially are – and they will continue to steal from generations yet unborn (at least those whom they haven’t murdered in their abortion mills) until there is nothing left of this nation but a hollowed-out shell.

And don’t think for a second that that isn’t exactly what many liberals – including many Obama friends and members of the Obama administration – want.

It’s coming for you, average American.  Liberals are presently demonizing the rich and demanding that they pay more and more and more.  But there aren’t enough rich people to pay these skyrocketing debts.  And so they’re going to start going after your wealth.  Do you know that even the poorest Americans have far more than most “citizens of the world”? When will you be told to pay YOUR share the way the rich have already been called upon to pay far more than theirs?

That’s right, craven average American liberal.  Pretty soon, the Democrats won’t be taxing the other guy; they’re going to come after YOU.  Not only because Democrats have spent too much to count on the wealthy to pay the load, but because the same argument that justified stealing the wealth of the rich in America is the identical same argument that will justify stealing YOUR wealth from YOU.  Just as the rich have far more than the average American, the average American has FAR more than the average Zimbabwean, who lives on less than $100 a year.  And the day is coming when you’re going to be taxed up the wazoo according to your own morally idiotic argument that you used to seize the wealth of your fellow Americans.

It will mean the destruction of American in every way, shape, and form, but at least I’d be able to see the look on the faces of all the people who thought that it was fair to force the top 50% of taxpayers to pay more than 97% of the taxes so that the other half can get off completely free and live like parasites.

I want to see the look on your faces when “the President of the world” starts going after what you’ve saved for yourselves and your children.  And many of you will have to demonstrate what collocate hypocrites you’ve been all along when you try to protect your assets from a government seizure of wealth that finally went too far for your comfort by going after you.

We don’t have much more time, Americans.  We will either vote these Democrats out, and rid ourselves from the menace of liberalism once for all, or we will economically implode.  And Democrats who will have brought that implosion into being will seek to use that implosion to impose the socialist society they’ve always dreamed of.

Obama Takeover Of Student Loans Means 2,500 Layoffs For Sallie Mae

April 1, 2010

What does ObamaCare mean?  It means a 29% slash in the workforce for student loan service provider Sallie Mae.  Remember in this insane world of Democrat rule that the government takeover of student loans was part of ObamaCare, whereas reimbursing doctors for Medicare was not.

Updated March 31, 2010
Sallie Mae Blames 2,500 Layoffs on Obama’s Student Loan Overhaul
By Kelly Chernenkoff

Powerhouse student loan provider Sallie Mae says layoffs are imminent as a result of President Obama’s new student loan overhaul.

“This legislation will force Sallie Mae to reduce our 8,600-person workforce by 2,500,” Conwey Casillas, Vice President of Sallie Mae Public Affairs, said in a statement to Fox News.

Obama was at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria on Tuesday to sign the student loan changes into law. The new bill includes a provision for the government to begin directly lending to students, bypassing financial institutions like Sallie May that traditionally have provided the loans. Obama said that such institutions have soaked up billions in subsidies.

“Now, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that the big banks and financial institutions hired a army of lobbyists to protect the status quo,” Obama said. “In fact, Sallie Mae, America’s biggest student lender, spent more than $3 million on lobbying last year alone.”

Indeed, Sallie Mae has been outspoken in its opposition to the plan, calling it a “government takeover” just last month.

“The student loan provisions buried in the health care legislation intentionally eliminate valuable default prevention services and private sector jobs at a time when our country can least afford to lose them,” Casillas told Fox News.

Sallie Mae was trying to garner support for an alternative, which the company said was roundly rejected.

“We are profoundly disappointed that a reform plan that would have achieved more savings for students was ignored and now thousands of student loan experts will unnecessarily lose their jobs,” Casillas said.

But Obama says he’s merely looking out for those in need.

“I didn’t stand with the banks and the financial industries in this fight. That’s not why I came to Washington. And neither did any of the members of Congress who are here today,” he said. “We stood with you. We stood with America’s students. And together, we finally won that battle.”

Obama said the move will save billions, enabling his administration to use the money to improve the quality and affordability of higher education.

Sallie Mae hasn’t said exactly when jobs will start getting slashed, but the cuts “will start soon,” Casillas said.

Obama did a good job demonizing the student loan service providers (after all, demonizing is pretty much the only thing he does well), but the reality is as usual quite different than the Obama demagoguery:

From the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, “The Quietest Trillion:
Congratulations. You’re about to own $100 billion a year in student loans
“:

It’s not a popular idea on campus. Loans directly from the feds have been available for decades, but the government’s poor customer service has resulted in most borrowers choosing private lenders. This week three dozen college administrators, representing schools from Notre Dame to Nevada-Reno, signed a letter urging a longer transition period to this “public option.” The fear is that the bureaucrats will not be able to pull off a takeover in just eight months. “Any delay in getting funds to schools on behalf of students will result in our needing to find resources at a time when credit is difficult to obtain,” warns the letter.

Tough luck for the Irish. Democrats have already greased this fall’s budget reconciliation to pass all of this on a mere majority vote. They are helped by rigged government accounting that disguises the cost of making below-market loans to unemployed 18-year-olds. Democrats have claimed their plan “saves” $87 billion in mandatory spending by cutting out the private middlemen, and the Congressional Budget Office has dutifully “scored” $87 billion in mandatory “savings” (or a net of $80 billion after subtracting administrative costs).

But in a remarkable letter to Senator Judd Gregg, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admits that government accounting is bogus. He writes that the statutory methodology “does not include the cost to the government stemming from the risk that the cash flows may be less than the amount projected (that is, that defaults could be higher than projected).” Mr. Elmendorf further notes that the government’s accounting system is specifically skewed to make direct loans from the government appear to cost much less than guaranteed loans made by private lenders. He says the real “savings” are only $47 billion, even though, in a deception that would be criminal fraud if it weren’t mandated by Congress, the official estimate remains at $80 billion.

Even the unofficial number is dubious. The government has been claiming lower default rates than private lenders, but most government loans have been to students at four-year colleges. The private lenders have serviced a higher percentage of students at community and two-year colleges, where defaults are more common regardless of lender.

If the feds are now making and owning all such loans, expect default rates to soar. When the government hires contractors to collect on its loans, it pays them for simply calling the borrower, regardless of the result. Private lenders, on the other hand, make money from a performing loan and have a greater incentive to do careful underwriting and aggressive collection.

The government will nonetheless start spending these illusory “savings” immediately, and this spending is certain to top official estimates. The Obama plan also adds a CBO-estimated $46 billion in new spending over 10 years to enlarge Pell grants. Ominously for the federal fisc, starting in 2011 these grants will automatically rise each year by the consumer price index plus 1%. Not that students will actually benefit from this subsidy explosion. Colleges have reliably raised prices to capture every federal dollar earmaked for education financing.

Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) decided the cost estimate for Pell grants was too low, so he asked CBO to take a second look. Along comes another enlightening letter from Mr. Elmendorf. This week he wrote that Mr. Kline is correct—it looks like they will cost another $11 billion. Unfortunately, the earlier estimate must remain the official score under budgeting rules, even though the official scorekeeper says it is wrong.

You start to see why the student loan takeover was part of ObamaCare, but the doctor fix was not: pure deceitful political cynicism of the very worst kind.  ObamaCare forced the CBO to assume the deception that doctor’s Medicare reimbursements would be slashed by 21% so they could deceitfully claim that “saving” for ObamaCare.  Even though Democrats will add those reimbursements back in another bill that will cost a rock bottom minimum of $200 billion.  Meanwhile, they decide that student loans are very much a part of ObamaCare so that they could raid the profits – after, of course, dramatically misrepresenting what those profits actually were.

In one fell swoop, ObamaCare destroys jobs, undermines the student loan system, AND ruins our health care system.

Nice trifecta.  If you’re an enemy of America.

ObamaCare Already Rearing Its VERY Ugly Head

March 28, 2010

You’ve got to be amazed at the Democrats’ arrogance, incompetence, and ignorance.

They are apparently having their version of Casablanca’s Captain Renault moment: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Only, in this Democrat-retelling, Captain Renault instead says, “Gambling?  There’s no gambling going on here!  It’s just gaming, not GAMBLING!  Why, it’s nothing more than two parties engaging in a predictive enterprise, in which the accurate prediction is rewarded in a monetary transaction.  But gambling?  You’re a violent racist to call that ‘gambling’!!!

Oh, my goodness.  I think you just spat on me!  It’s just the kind of thing you haters who attack us as “gamblers” would do!”

MARCH 27, 2010
The ObamaCare Writedowns
The corporate damage rolls in, and Democrats are shocked!

It’s been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or “political.”

Perhaps that explains why the Administration is now so touchy. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, “In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them.” In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said “for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible.”

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment “appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don’t like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

On top of AT&T’s $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.

Meanwhile, John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader reported this week that ObamaCare could cost the Granite State’s major ski resorts as much as $1 million in fines, because they hire large numbers of seasonal workers without offering health benefits. “The choices are pretty clear, either increase prices or cut costs, which could mean hiring fewer workers next winter,” he wrote.

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don’t make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.

The Democrats passed their totally partisan bill (the only bipartisanship was in the “Hell no!” vote, with 34 Democrats joining every single Republican).

The New York Times reported that Obama’s core promise was his pledge that he would transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, move beyond the divisive politics of Washington, and build a new governing majority that brought Democrats, independents and Republicans together.  And now we know that his fundamental, core promise was just a total lie, a massive lie of the devil.  Not only did he not try to become a unifying figure, as he cynically and deceitfully promised, but he became the most polarizing president in the history of the nation.  And that broken promise is now erupting into open rage like we have never seen in this country.

Obama is trying to demonize Republicans for the anger, but HE WAS THE ONE WHO PROMISED TO BE A TRANSCENDENT FIGURE.  HE WAS THE ONE WHO LIED.

Democrats have obfuscated every fact with spin and lies, and every single truth teller they could not bribe or intimidate they have tried to destroy.

Democrats can pass a pile of stinking lies on a 100% partisan ideological vote, but what they can’t do is make that pile of stinking lies that comprise ObamaCare actually work.  The Democrats health care law is already an open disaster, and it will continue to grow into a bigger and bigger disaster no matter how many congressional kangaroo courts they hold to demonize businesses who reported that their costs will skyrocket under this evil bill.

Obama said if you liked your health care you could keep itABC was reporting that that promise was questionable back in July of last year.  Now it is a proven lie.  It was just another whopping lie of the devil all along.  Businesses are taking hits in the millions and even in the billions of dollars.  And one of them after another is going to start dumping their retirees into Medicare as the cost of offering private insurance plans soar under ObamaCare.

Obama’s reckeless spending is simply staggering.  The CBO is reporting that it is a gigantic $1.2 TRILLION more than Obama said it would be.  And they are reporting the terrifying news that the federal debt will soar to 90% of Gross Domestic Product.

Business costs are soaring.  AT & T will take a billion dollar hit because of ObamaCare.

As bad as that is in dollars, the bigger hit may well be the one taken by Caterpillar, because it shows the abject hypocrisy and fraud of ObamaCare.  Last year Obama said that “you can measure America’s bottom line by looking at Caterpillar’s bottom line.” And now that same Caterpillar is taking a $100 million hit due to ObamaCare.  Now that same Caterpillar is saying, “From our point of view, a tax increase like this cannot come at a worse time.”

That means fewer jobs for Americans.  A LOT fewer jobs.  And no denials by our Democrat version of Captain Renault can change that with his sputtering denials.

And there are other hidden provisions that are starting to leap out of this bill that Democrats passed, but apparently never bothered to read.

Now we’re finding that Americans are going to take a hit as high as $2,000 under another dark tunnel provision in ObamaCare.

“The damage is coming sooner than expected.”

That’s the nutshell summary of ObamaCare.

Obama Massively Underestimates His Deficit; And By The Way, Federal Debt Will Raise To 90% Of GDP

March 26, 2010

Good afternoon, America.  You each owe $10,000 more than the government thought you did yesterday.  Hope that doesn’t bother anybody.

Barack Obama is leading the United States of America straight down to hell.  And it will be completely broke and massively in debt when we get there:

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
Friday, March 26, 2010
By David M. Dickson

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.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade
.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

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.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

“That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more,” according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

CBO projected the 2011 deficit will be $1.34 trillion, not much different from the administration’s estimate of $1.27 trillion. However, CBO’s estimate of the 2020 deficit at $1.25 trillion significantly exceeds the administration’s $1 trillion estimate.

Just so you know, a few things were different at the end of World War II than they are now.  For one thing, who held the U.S. debt back then?  The American people, who had purchased savings bonds, war bonds, and the like.  When the government began paying those debts with interest, it was paying American citizens who invested that money back in the U.S. economy.

Not so now.  Now we owe China and Japan and other foreign countries.  It’s foreign investment; and foreigners will reap the rewards at our children’s expense.

A second thing is a corollary to the first.  We used to be a nation of savers.  Now we’re a nation of spenders.  We’ve got no resources saved up for tough times.  The moment we have an economic slowdown, people can’t pay their mortgages or their bills and everything goes to hell.

Third, we actually PRODUCED something at the end of WW II.  In fact, we were the most productive nation with the most powerful industrial base in the history of the world back then.  Now?  We basically don’t build anything any more.  Now our economy is based primarily on consuming what others build.

And fourth, that apex of debt at the end of WWII occurred BECAUSE of WWII.  We went into debt because of a war against the most evil regimes in the history of the planet.  And after we won that war, we went back to normal, and started quickly bringing our debt level down.

Now it’s just the opposite.  Our debt level is skyrocketing, but it isn’t do to a historic event; it’s just do to the fact that our government consists of spending addicts and we’re spending and spending and spending with no responsibility to the present or foresight for the future.

We are so screwed.  We WILL have a Great Depression that will make the last one look like a Love Boat cruise.  The only question is how far we can string our insanity along until reality takes over and we implode.

And what does our current administration have to say about it?

How ’bout if we spend a few trillion more taking over the health care system?

CBO Totally Off Projecting Social Security Meltdown

March 26, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office has a 100% track record: they always underestimate how much government programs cost; and they always fail to project how soon they will go to hell.

It is ironically fitting that we have the news that Social Security is going into the red way ahead of schedule the same week that we pass a law based on a massively erroneous CBO projection.

From the New York Times:

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Okay.  The CBO was off by a whopping six years.

And we’re supposed to trust the accuracy of their bogus politicized “score” of ObamaCare why?

The New York Times goes on to say:

Mr. Goss said Social Security’s annual report last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016 because economists expected a quicker, stronger recovery from the crisis. Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.

The trustees did foresee, in late 2008, that the recession would be severe enough to deplete Social Security’s funds more quickly than previously projected. They moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041. Mr. Goss declined to reveal the contents of the forthcoming annual report, but said people should not expect the date to lurch forward again.

Do you get that?  The report that said everything would be just peachy dandy until 2016 was just written LAST YEAR.

These people don’t have a freaking clue.  And that is simply a fact.

You were sold a bill of lies packaged under the rhetoric, “Ten years from now, ObamaCare will only cost X, Y, and Z.”

These people don’t know what the hell will happen next week, let alone next decade.

The math necessary to justify the proposition that ObamaCare would cover 30 million more people and run in a deficit neutral fashion rather reminds me of a Sidney Harris cartoon:

All I can tell you is the Democrats’ math wasn’t even explicit in step one.

There were so many gimmicks, shenanigans, and outright lies in the legislation they sent to the CBO for scoring that it isn’t even funny.

This bill will boomerang back at us in the coming years and it will bankrupt the country.  We’ve had wildly wrong budget projections in the form of analysis justifying Social Security and Medicare.  And now we’ve got $100 trillion debt in unfunded liabilities to show for those totally bogus projections.  We’ve managed to weather the massive red ink deficits in those programs until now, but there’s a fundamental difference with ObamaCare.  That difference is A) that we’re stacking ObamaCare on top of those massive liabilities and compounding trillions on top of trillions; and B) that the economy is in FAR worse shape than it was than when these massive programs went off the rails.

79% of Americans see a complete economic collapse coming.  They’re right.  Get ready for it.  Because the beast is coming.

Update, March 26: Today we have this news as reported in the Washington Times:

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
Friday, March 26, 2010
By David M. Dickson

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.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

Only a total fool would trust the government’s ability to do anything other than massively underestimate its debts.

The problem is that fools from the party of fools are in power.

13 States Have ALREADY Sued Over ObamaCare Obomination

March 23, 2010

13 states have already filed suit to stop the monster of ObamaCare.  A total of 38 states (76%) are now working on their own versions of “the spirit of ’76.”

From the AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

You DO have to kind of laugh at the propaganda that the AP feels they must insert: “Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding,” as though every single legal expert has ruled, and the AP merely duly reported.

Bullpuckey.  There are plenty of “legal experts” who think the exact opposite.  And it couldn’t be more dishonest of the Associated Press to imply that such isn’t the case.

One of my favorite “legal experts” who disagrees with the AP’s monolithic assertion is Jay Sekulow, who has argued before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and frequently won.  In another article which has a rather different slant from the AP’s bias, he had the following to say:

The ACLJ says it will file amicus briefs on behalf of thousands of its supporters in the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law by numerous states.

“Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions of pro-life Americans who don’t want to be forced to purchase a health care package that funds abortion,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told LifeNews.com.

“We support the litigation being initiated by a number of states and plan to file amicus briefs in those cases representing thousands of our members. This health care law should not be forced upon the American people. We believe the courts will agree,” he added.

Sekulow added: “These legal challenges will be numerous and occur in many jurisdictions. The constitutional issues at stake are significant and it’s likely this will end up before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

I’m not trying to present Jay Sekulow as the greatest of all “legal experts.”  But there is no question that Sekulow IS a legal expert.  His American Center for Law and Justice has been called a “powerful counterweight to the ACLU” by Time Magazine.

Oh, there are other ones, such as Dr. Randy Barnett, who argues regarding ObamaCare that:

Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people. For this reason it is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold this assertion of power.

How many legal experts am I supposed to produce to show that the Associated Press is full of crap?

One of the constitutional issues derives from the 10th Amendment, which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, I know that liberals are often able to find penumbras and emanations that justify them to do pretty much whatever the hell they want to justify, but you show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to ram ObamaCare down our throats or to force citizens to purchase insurance just for the privilege of breathing.

The other issue is the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Now again, you need one hell of a penumbra and emanation to see in this clause the right for the federal government to force private citizens to purchase insurance from private companies.

It’s one thing to say the federal government can regulate, quite another to assert that the federal government has the power under this clause to force whoever they want to buy whatever they want from whoever they want.  Unless “commerce” is to be defined as a transaction that takes place at the point of a gun aimed at the purchaser’s chest, with the government saying, “Buy or die.”

This is what Dr. Randy Barnett was getting to: to grant the constitutionality of ObamaCare amounts to a massive increase in federal power, which would make the states and the people vassals and the federal government a tyrant.  It would no longer make sense to ask what the federal government can do under the commerce clause; it would only make sense to ask, “Is there anything the federal government CAN’T do under the commerce clause?” And the answer would be basically no.

The CBO, in a more honorable day, stated this abuse of federal power quite clearly when it responded to the individual mandate that Bill Clinton sought to impose:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

One of the interesting things about ObamaCare is that it never even attempts to state the cost of the individual mandates.  That figure is nowhere found in the CBO score.  It isn’t deemed a “tax” because the federal government doesn’t take the money.  Rather, you are forced to give your money to a private insurance company.

It is a fact that ObamaCare represents a massive unprecedented takeover of not only our health care system, but of our way of life, by the federal government.  Nothing like this has EVER been done in our entire history.  And Democrats frankly don’t care about this abuse of our history, our laws, and our way of life because they have always looked to the socialism, Marxism, and fascism of Europe as their model.

The one thing I can take some hope in is that the Supreme Court still has a 5-4 majority of conservative justices.  I expect those justices to recognize that Barack Obama shouldn’t have unlimited power as the head of the federal government to impose his will upon the states and upon the American people.

And Obama certainly didn’t do his standing with Justice Samuel Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts when he contemptuously demonized the Supreme Court at his last State of the Union.

Let me ask one final question: suppose you are a liberal, and you want ObamaCare.  Are you willing to take in trade for that a Republican president and Republican Congress enjoying this unprecedented federal power?  It is increasingly obvious that Republicans are going to take back the House and Senate in the 2010 election.  You’d better realize that your support of ObamaCare now means you will be voting in favor of the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” after we take back the White House and do unto you twice what you did unto us.

Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings said,

‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along…”

You Democrats might be mocking us now, but just you wait until you see what OUR interpretation of “There ain’t no rules around here” looks like.  You will have opened the door to your own future payback.  You just wait until we have our chance to use the raw, naked power of government to impose our very righteous anger back on you.

I submit that neither side should want the kind of unprecedented federal power that will be necessary to implement ObamaCare.

Democrats ‘Fix’ ObamaCare Numbers By Leaving Out TRILLIONS In Additional Spending

March 20, 2010

This is Bernie Madoff Accounting. And the same fate that befell Madoff’s investors will one day befall the American people. The Democrats only count the costs they want to count, and simply pretend the rest don’t exist, or assure us that they somehow shouldn’t be counted.  Positive numbers from unrealistic expectations show up on one side of the ledger, while negative numbers representing massive government and personal spending are ignored.

This article will demonstrate the REAL cost of ObamaCare.  And what we will find is that the monster it creates will sneeze chunks bigger than the $940 billion that the CBO score pitches.

It’s not like the CBO isn’t aware that it is being played like a fiddle.  They can only analyze legislation as it is presented – and this legislation is being presented by partisan Democrat ideologues.  The CBO has pointed out that the Democrats have a pattern of double-counting the same dollars.  But they can’t do anything about it: if the Democrats tell them to double-count, they dutifully double-count.  Paul Ryan points out that Medicare cuts are double counted, Social Security taxes get double counted, increased CLASS Act premiums get double counted, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Other sources of revenue – such as the not-to-be-implemented “Cadillac Tax” which would itself count for 25% of deficit reduction in the CBO score – will likely NEVER see the light of day. The CBO numbers become a shell game.

You can understand why the Democrats would want to run away from details of the CBO score. If the facts get in the way of their theory, so much the worse for the facts.

Then there’s the likelihood that ObamaCare will destroy as many as 700,000 jobs.  What’s THAT going to cost America?  Would THAT be “deficit neutral”?  And how much will it cost Americans as increased government taxes on private health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device and supply companies, pass the burden of those taxes onto us? Will THAT be “deficit neutral” for American families?

But let’s stay out of the budgetary weeds, and remain on what is clear and straightforward.

Let us first begin with the “Doctor fix,” which is a $208 billion spending measure to restore the reimbursement rates for doctors who treat Medicare patients.  If it isn’t passed, the current rate – which already leaves hospitals and many doctors losing money to treat Medicare patients – would be slashed by an additional 21 percent.  It simply has to be fixed, or doctors and hospitals will quit treating Medicare patients.

But if the Democrats strip that part out of their health care bill, they can claim that 21 percent reduction in doctors’ reimbursements as “savings.”  Even if they intend to fix the reimbursement rate, such that those “saving” never materialize.  And that little bit of fiscal circular reasoning allows them to claim that their bill is “deficit neutral.”

Medicare fix would push health care into the red
Rollback of Medicare cuts to doctors, if added to health care bill, push it into the red
On Friday March 19, 2010, 6:33 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

What this basically means is that $940 billion number in the CBO report that the Democrats are cheering over is entirely subjective.  It would have been a lot higher if they had included the stuff they should have included.  And they didn’t include these things simply because it would have made their number look bad.  It’s Alice in Wonderland accounting.

So let’s look at the truth: Democrats are claiming that their “$940 billion bill” would reduce the ten-year deficit by $138 billion.  But in reality, the doctor fix which SHOULD be in the bill would INCREASE THE DEFICIT by $59 billion.  That’s a swing of 197 billion dollars, which is one hell of a swing indeed.

But that certainly isn’t the only budget shenanigan that Democrats have used to monkey the numbers to appear to look like what they want:

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs.  First, it includes 2010 as the initial year.  As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time.  Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009.  But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.  If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

This $260 billion ($1.2 trillion minus $940 billion) deficit created by backdating the bill to 2010 instead of starting in 2011 when they should (until Democrats instructed them to do differently) has nothing to do with the deficit created by the doctor fix.  So they compound: $260 billion plus $197 billion equals $457 billion.

So we’re talking about a real and obvious deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars.  But that’s nowhere near as bad as it will really be.

You see, even starting the CBO ten-year cycle in 2011 is nothing more than a gimmick.  That’s because the plan begins taxing in 2011, but benefits (actual spending outlays) don’t begin to be funded until 2014.  The Democrats tax for ten years, but only spend for six.  Why did they do that?  Because that is the only way they can get the illusion of a “deficit neutral” figure.  As Heritage points out:

[S]ome scrupulous tactics were used to calculate the 10-year cost projections. The key provisions in the health care bill don’t go into effect until 2014. Meanwhile Medicare cuts and tax increases would go into effect immediately. So the money raised through taxes and spending cuts in the first four years of the 10-year projection would offset the expenditures in the subsequent six years. Consequently, when the true ten year window (2014-2023) is examined, and the costs of the “Doc Fix” are taken into account, the cost rises to $2.3 trillion.

This – and the shenanigans Democrats employ with the CLASS Act – is why Heritage rightly calculates the REAL cost of ObamaCare as likely far higher than $2.5 TRILLION.

These are obvious and transparent gimmicks.  But the mainstream media is largely simply ignoring it.  They are liberal in their ideology and “gatekeepers” in their philosophy of journalism.  The result is that they don’t tell you anything that they don’t want you to know.

But even that – as utterly terrible as it is – is STILL not anywhere close to the REAL cost of this disastrous health care bill.  Consider the most sobering Democrat omission of all.  From Cato:

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Here’s where things get really ugly.  TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.”  Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

For the record, it was this subsidizing of the private health insurance companies that Dennis Kucinich was talking about before he backstabbed his own principles and voted for the bill anyway.

In 1994, the universal health care plan proposed by President Clinton included a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded that the United States had never in all its history mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.  The CBO stated:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

But it is going to start doing so now, under Obama and the Democrats in Congress.  They could care less about the Constitution, or about the consequences of radically expanding already massive government bureaucracies.

Obama is going to force you to purchase insurance, but the CBO won’t count the cost of one penny of that spending, now or ever.  If you send money to the government that the government requires you to send them, that’s a tax.  If the government spends money, that counts as spending.  But if the government forces you to send money to a private health insurance company, that isn’t counted.  It amounts to a tax that isn’t “deemed” (there’s a good word these days) a tax.

Thus the REAL ten-year cost of ObamaCare won’t be $940 billion.  It won’t even be $2.5 trillion.  It will be SIX TRILLION DOLLARS.  And counting, and counting, and counting, and counting.