Posts Tagged ‘projection’

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.

Even New York Times Pointing Out Democrats Lying Over Cost Of Obamacare

October 31, 2009

When the Gray Lady says that Democrats are lying, you can rest assured that they are not only lying, but lying their weaselly little heads off.

From the New York Times:

In a news release shortly before House Democrats held a rally to unveil the bill, Ms. Pelosi’s office wrote: “The legislation’s coverage cost will be $894 billion over 10 years, fully paid for.” And in her speech at the event, Ms. Pelosi said: “It reduces the deficits, meets President Obama’s call to keep the cost under $900 billion over 10 years, and it insures 36 million more Americans.”

But…

… a closer look at the budget office report suggests that the number everyone should have reported was $1.055 trillion, which is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill before taking account of certain new revenues, including penalties by individuals and employers who fail to meet new insurance requirements in the bill.

According to the budget office, the overall cost of the bill is more than offset by revenues from new taxes or cuts in spending by the government, resulting in a reduction in future budget deficits of $104 billion.

All of these figures cover a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019.

And how do Nancy Pelosi’s aid justify themselves?  By pointing out that, since Democrats in the Senate lied, House Democrats have a right to lie, too:

Aides to Ms. Pelosi defended their decision to focus on the $894 billion net figure. They also pointed out that in an “apples to apples” comparison — $1.055 trillion for the House bill vs. $829 billion for the Senate Finance measure — the House bill is projected to insure 7 million more people.

The cost of the health care legislation is incredibly significant these days.  It turns out that even Democrats are beginning to understand that -gasp – soaring deficits actually matter.

The fact of the matter is, the CBO – even when they’re trying to be honest – aren’t very good at counting the costs (which Jesus said was kind of important as a fundamental undertaking before starting something major).  The fact of the matter is that the government has historically underestimated the costs of their projects by an average factor of seven.  And some of their worst miscalculations of all have been in the category of health care.

The Wall Street Journal provided this handy-dandy little illustration of that sad history:

It’s certainly not the CBO’s fault, mind you.  Not when Democrats have been routinely and blatantly playing numbers shenanigans to hide the real costs of their massive government takeover from the American people.

Harry Reid actually made a staggering admission while trying to prevent the Democrat-special-interest-anathema tort reform.  He said:

HARRY REID: “He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent.”

[Youtube]

And I would love to bet any Democrat that the ultimate cost of this monstrosity will be far greater than $2 trillion.

The cost of the Democrats’ health care “change” will become yet another giant anchor stopping the forward momentum of our economy.  And as it leads to economic collapse, it will increasingly lead to medical rationing and the deaths of senior citizens by government-mandated medical neglect.

Update, November 2: Oops.  Did I say $1.055 trillion?  I’m sorry.  It’s now $1.2 trillion.

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan

The actual deficit figure is dramatically higher.  For instance, we’re STILL waiting for the cuts in Medicare that Bill Clinton and the Democrats promised in 1993.  In fact, we’re STILL waiting for ANY cuts in Medicare.  So you can safely add a minimum of $500 billion to the actual deficit that Obamacare will create; because there is no way that Democrats will do what they are claiming they will do and slash the Medicare budget.