CBO: Senate bill increases federal spending, still reduces deficit

posted at 12:55 pm on March 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Well, maybe. This isn’t the reconciliation parallel bill, of course, because as Nancy Pelosi notes, we haven’t seen that yet, and neither has the CBO. This recalculates the CBO’s findings from December, and now they see more federal spending in the first 10 years and slightly less deficit reduction. However, the CBO still says that the Senate version — with its Cadillac tax and no public option, of course — will cut into the deficit by $118 billion in the first ten years, still thanks to delayed implementation of spending as opposed to revenues.

CBO Reid Letter HR3590

What impact will this have? Likely, none at all, since the final version of the bill would change significantly if the House stands firm on reconciliation. The real story from the CBO will come when they review that bill, and it will take at least a week for the CBO to do that analysis after the House actually writes it. Given the extensive changes demanded in the House on taxation, eligibility, and fees, it seems very likely that the CBO will have a much different outlook later in the month.

Meanwhile, The Hill has its eye on the whip counts, and while nothing is definite about passage or defeat as of yet, it’s not looking good for Pelosi. For the first time, the efforts to convince pro-life Democrats to support the bill shows signs of generating a backlash among progressives:

More than two dozen Democrats are expected to vote against the healthcare reform bill that will hit the House floor in the coming weeks.

At least 25 House Democrats will reject the healthcare reform legislation, according to a survey by The Hill, a review of other media reports and interviews with lawmakers, aides and lobbyists. Dozens of House Democrats are undecided or won’t comment on their position on the measure.

The 25 opposed include firm “no” votes and members who are likely “no” votes. Most Democrats on The Hill’s whip list are definitely going to vote no, but others, such as Reps. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) and Harry Teague (N.M.), could vote yes.

However, The Hill has not yet put Democrats who are insisting on Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) language on abortion in the “no” category. Stupak has said there are 12 Democrats who supported the House bill in November who will vote no unless his anti-abortion-rights measure is melded into the final bill.

If leadership doesn’t make changes to the abortion language and Stupak does indeed have 12 votes in his pocket, it will be very difficult to pass a bill. Yet if they do change the provisions, supporters of abortion rights in the House will threaten to vote no.

In other words, it’s a mess. The Hill only lists two “firm yes” Representatives, Dale Kildee and Silvestre Reyes, the latter of whom got a key chair slot from Pelosi last year. They also list two as leaning yes, Russ Carnahan — who avoided being seen with Obama in Missouri yesterday, which isn’t a good sign — and Virginia’s Gerry Connolly, seen as a key bellwether vote. They list a whopping 78 undecided, all of whom would have to vote yes at this point to pass the bill.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

For the first time, the efforts to convince pro-life Democrats to support the bill shows signs of generating a backlash among progressives:

Just a bluff. They want nazionalized health care, this is a step in that direction, the progressives will cave on abortion — for the moment. They’ll wait 5-10 years until they’re back in power.

rbj on March 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Wait,I thought nanc said they could DEEM it w/out any votes?
If that’s the case why have a congress???Just deem it thru!

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM

So, $118 billion over 10 years? Enough to reduce our current monthly budget defecit by about half. Whoopee!

joejm65 on March 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM

We’re going to tax you into oblivion for ten years and pay for your health care for four years. Thus, we will reduce the deficit. Any questions? Aren’t we good?

orlandocajun on March 11, 2010 at 12:59 PM

gerry connolly is losing in the polls to his opponent. he may not be intelligent enough to identify that sound as “footsteps”.

c’mon NOVA constituents. call him. (well, he might be waiting for Mark Warner, Jim Webb or Terry McAuliffe to give him money for voting YES)

kelley in virginia on March 11, 2010 at 12:59 PM

i think they all can be bought.

kelley in virginia on March 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM

This CBO scoring also leaves out the INCREASES in spending for the IRS, and HHS, which will run the paperwork side of all the programs…

These have been estimated to cost 10-20 Billion a year… but CBO does not score that part as they would be in seperate bills.

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM

And how much additional cost gets dumped on the states?

pedestrian on March 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Looks like Barry has bought off the CBO too.

Knucklehead on March 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I say it’s an obvious fake. iIt starts off with “Honorable Harry Reid.”

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM

i think they all can be bought.

kelley in virginia on March 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM
//
Makes you wonder how the new ones coming in in Nov. can hold up against them.

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM

CARNAGE!!!! I deem more Dem carnage to be great!!!!

search4truth on March 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM

i think they all can be bought.

kelley in virginia on March 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM

i wouldnt be so sure
they have home town constituents to deal with

blatantblue on March 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Just wondering..what is the track record of the CBO projections? Has anyone compiled a history?

Itchee Dryback on March 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM

CBO: Senate bill increases federal spending, still reduces deficit

I just did a little math in my head, and I came up with tax increases.

forest on March 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Hogwash! The devil is in the assumptions. We need the whole story so we can evaluate their projected revenue stream. Any fool can make up a string of assumptive crap that will show a deficit reduction. The first and worst mistake anyone could make is to believe them.

rplat on March 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM

These have been estimated to cost 10-20 Billion a year… but CBO does not score that part as they would be in seperate bills.

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Right. The Democrats are smart enough to split up the costs in such a way that they get the CBO numbers they want.

Looks like Barry has bought off the CBO too.

Knucklehead on March 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM

See above. The CBO can only work with the numbers they are given (and sometimes leave out and assume things that seem to defy common sense). That’s why waiting for the CBO numbers to prove your case is can be a double-edged sword.

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM

They list a whopping 78 undecided, all of whom would have to vote yes at this point to pass the bill.

So all Pelosi has to do is run the table on all of these reps in a week.

Last I heard, she was at about 202-205. She would need every one of Stupak’s group to cave in order to close the gap.

Vashta.Nerada on March 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM

However, the CBO still says that the Senate version — with its Cadillac tax and no public option, of course — will cut into the deficit by $118 billion in the first ten years, still thanks to delayed implementation of spending as opposed to revenues.

Anything is possible when you use 10 years of taxes to fund 6 years of benefits. The ObamaCare Pay Now, Buy Later Plan.

So what would the American People think of paying higher taxes for 4 years while receiving NO benefits? Maybe they might throw Obama out on his kiester in 2012?

Steve Z on March 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

This is not going to happen because A) It’s unconstitutional and B) it’s just Pelosi throwing a bone to the base/media that they are “close” when she obviously doesn’t have the votes.

SouthernGent on March 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM

What are the statistics for CBO staff members:
- Shaking their heads,
- Face palms,
- Telling a CBO co-worker that so and so politician is an idiot,
- throwing their hands up in the air.

WashJeff on March 11, 2010 at 1:11 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

It’s rediculous and moronic and will never ever work unless we just do away with process altogether and let Obama sign “ideas” into law.

uknowmorethanme on March 11, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Rush is on the Slaughter thingy right now!

canopfor on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I want to hear from a lawyer (worth his salt) if this is leagal though.

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Does this have something to do with election results this November?

WashJeff on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Makes you wonder how the new ones coming in in Nov. can hold up against them.

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Politicians can only be “bought” if their constituents look the other way or go along with it. That’s why “term limits” and “campaign reform” movements bug me so much. The only thing that can keep a politician from being purchased is an educated and engaged electorate.

To make a long story short [too late]: The Tea Party Movement, honest conservative blogs, fair and balanced news and talk radio.

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Sould be legal,I’m spitting nails right now.

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I want to hear from a lawyer (worth his salt) if this is legal though.

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Salt may be illegal though.

WashJeff on March 11, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Wait,I thought nanc said they could DEEM it w/out any votes?
If that’s the case why have a congress???Just deem it thru!

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Deem me up Scotty

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

The Far-left National Socialist whackovs in the Democrat party think they can wear us down with all this palace intrigue and back room deal making and it’s dead/It’s Alive news leaks.

What they don’t realize is they instead of wearing us down it’s pissing us off royally.

Chip on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

I see this as a game of political chicken. You’ve got various political interests racing at one another and the outcome is solely based on who blinks first. I’m pessimistic that Obamacare will be defeated BUT the longer this drags on the more skittish the Dems are going to be to stand behind Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the filthy lying coward in the White House. By voting with them they give their GOP opponent the ability to saddle this entire miserable radical socialist year on the rat. Few can withstand that kind of condemnation.

highhopes on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

I live Connolly’s district. He’s as liberal and crooked as they come. I’d be VERY surprised if he votes no. I’m sure him being “undecided” is just him hedging his bets, either to appear more moderate (an important appearance to possess in a VA that overwhelming voted in favor of a solid conservative in last year’s gubernatorial race) or to bide his time to determine if the bill is going down in flames anyway (thus making a possible no vote more politically advantageous). I wouldn’t count on a no vote from him, though. He’ll only vote that way – maybe – if it looks like the bill is doomed regardless.

Vyce on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Deem me up Scotty

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

It definitely seems as if we are living in the America where Spock has a goatee.

highhopes on March 11, 2010 at 1:15 PM

This CBO scoring also leaves out the INCREASES in spending for the IRS, and HHS, which will run the paperwork side of all the programs…

These have been estimated to cost 10-20 Billion a year… but CBO does not score that part as they would be in seperate bills.

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM

This is the same scam that allows the liberals to pretend that Medicare is more efficient than private insurers. They hide most of Medicare’s expenses in other budgets.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Personaly, I think one way to “fix” part of the system is to enact a law so that when a Politician retires, or does not run, their “Warchest” of campaign finance money goes immediatly into a Pool for the Next Presidential Race… vice them keeping it.

Currently, a Senator who has no real intention of running, can get the Max from a person every year… and they then KEEP that money…. if that is not bribery, I don’t know what is…

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Vyce on March 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

I live next door in Jim “child beater” Moran’s district. There isn’t even a question how the rat bastard traitor is going to vote. Too many damned radicals infesting Arlington and Reston for my vote to matter.

highhopes on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Looks like Barry has bought off the CBO too.

Knucklehead on March 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM

No, it’s that he’s bought of the media. If we had a decent media, they’d be ridiculing the particulars of the Senate bill and Obama’s suggestions 24/7. Not a day should pass when Gibbs isn’t roasted for the nonsense in this bill.

Seriously, virtually no benefits for four years while tax increases kick in immediately? What business–except Gov’t Motors–couldn’t project a profit taking in 10 years’ worth of revenue, while paying expenses of only six years. Apparently, CBO doesn’t have the authority to tell the person requesting a score that the structure of the bill is patently moronic.

BuckeyeSam on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Anybody that believes this CBO estimate please see me . . . I have many large bridges to sell. Furthermore, this is not simply about money, it’s about losing our basic freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, Democrats and other leftists are not interested in the pursuit of liberty.

rplat on March 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM

too many moving parts..she’s gonna go down, folks.

DrW on March 11, 2010 at 1:19 PM

So what would the American People think of paying higher taxes for 4 years while receiving NO benefits? Maybe they might throw Obama out on his kiester in 2012?

Steve Z on March 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Most of the taxes are hidden. A few rich people will see their insurance plans cut back, but nobody cares about the rich. A bunch of medical devices will get more expensive, but the Democrats will blame that on evil medical companies gouging the patients. Many people will see their insurance payments go up, which the Democrats will blame on evil insurance companies, and use that as an excuse to go to a full single payer plan.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Currently, a Senator who has no real intention of running, can get the Max from a person every year… and they then KEEP that money…. if that is not bribery, I don’t know what is…

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

For real? Holy crap. I dig your fix.

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Salt may be illegal though.

WashJeff on March 11, 2010 at 1:13 PM
//
Is this America anymore?????

ohiobabe on March 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM

So what Ed’s saying is that if Obama passes 2 of these things, he can cover February.

Chuck Schick on March 11, 2010 at 1:21 PM

A few rich people will see their insurance plans cut back, but nobody cares about the rich.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:19 PM

You and I both are rich under this plan. We (or our employers) will pay a surcharge on the coverage, and at the same time, we will get reduced treatment options.

Vashta.Nerada on March 11, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Healing folks, its all about the power of healing. Did you know that nObama can bend light….yes he can…ax anyone!

dmann on March 11, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Just wondering..what is the track record of the CBO projections? Has anyone compiled a history?

Itchee Dryback on March 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Very poor.
One of the biggest problems is that CBO is required by law to use a static model when guessing at the affect of tax changes. That is, they are required to assume that nobody will change their behavior due to tax changes. To calculate how much money will be brought in by a 40% tax on cadillac insurance plans, they assume that nobody will dump their cadillac plan, or adjust it to avoid the tax.

In reality, the tax will bring almost no money, but the CBO is required by law to assume that it will bring in 10′s of billions.

The Republicans tried to fix this many years ago, but the Democrats fought against it tooth and nail.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Romeo13 on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I’m for public funding of Presidential races to the extent they can have all the posterboard, magic markers, and glitter that they need to make campaign signs. But that’s it. You need to be a millionaire just to consider running and I can’t fathom what it must take to run a statewide race in California or NY.

highhopes on March 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM

OT: Dana Perino is on Megyn Kelly’s show. I have found heaven.

John the Libertarian on March 11, 2010 at 1:23 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

If the Senate can’t do reconcilliation on a bill that hasn’t been signed yet. (As per a thread from yesterday)
How the heck can it do reconcilliation on a bill that hasn’t even been voted on yet?

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:23 PM

It would only save $118B, even with the taxes going into it for years before any benefits start? That’s insanity.

RachDubya on March 11, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The only thing that can keep a politician from being purchased is an educated and engaged electorate.

29Victor on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM

The problem here is that most people have lives. They work, take care of their family, houses, etc.

We keep up with this kind of stuff because we are junkies. We like fighting over these kinds of things. Most people don’t, they want to live their lives and just be left alone.

Any system that requires the majority of people to keep informed in order to work properly, is a system that is designed to fail.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I see the Democrats are still struggling with a healthcare bill they should be able to pass with ease. There’s only one thing stopping them and that’s abortion. The importance of abortions is the life blood of the Democrat party. It’s obvious with the motions they are going through that they revere it.

They could, if they wanted, have ObamaCare signed, sealed and delivered this weekend. All they would have to do delete anything and everything regarding the federal funding of abortion and it would probably pass with some arm twisting. If they delete everything regarding abortion from the bill, it passes with ease.

ConservativeTony on March 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

With the Latino congresscritters now opposed, or pretending to, it’s going to add an extra layer of “what is Nancy taking in her coffee/tea?” She is full of hot air…but that is nothing new, just more blatantly exposed now.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Your average citizen has a better chance of knowing the batting averages for the members of the local baseball team, than he does to know how his local representative voted on the important bill over the last month.

We may not like it. We may yell and scream that politics is important and it is a citizen’s job to keep up with what the politicians are doing.

But we are fooling ourselves. Most people will never keep up the way we do, because politics is a subject that does not interest most people.

A system that requires people to change their basic nature, is a system that is doomed to fail.

MarkTheGreat on March 11, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Why aren’t you Far-left National Socialist wackos from the Democrat Party concerned that “It’-Died-and-come-back-to- life-so-many-freakin-times-,-why-isn’t-dead-yet?-Care” will bankrupt the country?
Why aren’t you concerned about everyone’s lose of privacy and freedom?
Why aren’t you concerned about the higher costs and higher taxes people will pay?
Oh right, you think it’ll be “FREE” and that you somehow have the right to STEAL from somebody else.

Chip on March 11, 2010 at 1:31 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM

The members have to still vote on the rule change. They can say they voted for the rule change and then try to say they didn’t vote for the Senate bill, but it’s the same thing.

I’m not sure those Dems who are no votes at the moment would want their fingerprints on something like that.

ladyingray on March 11, 2010 at 1:31 PM

ConservativeTony on March 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

You assume its all about taking one for the team and not caring about re-election come November.

dmann on March 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM

With the Latino congresscritters now opposed, or pretending to,

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Where did you get that info? Link?

Is it just coincidence that they are now opposed just when CIR is heating up?

ConservativeTony on March 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM

One thing we now know, we can’t trust the CBO ever since the visit by the director to the thug-in-chief.

Trust is not a renewable resource.

tarpon on March 11, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Obama is at 46-45 today on Gallup’s daily tracker. I’m pretty sure that’s his lowest level yet. The more he talks the more people cringe.

SouthernGent on March 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM

dmann on March 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Yes, I WAS thinking these Democrats are more afraid of facing Nancy than they are facing thier voters back home.

Silly me.

ConservativeTony on March 11, 2010 at 1:38 PM

i think they all can be bought.

kelley in virginia on March 11, 2010 at 1:00 PM

I agree. Some doof votes yes, because Queen Nancy gave him a primo chair on a committee? How pathetic. They’re not only unprincipled, corrupt losers. They’re whores, who can be bought with pittances. It’s sick.

Where are principled, honest, leaders who want to do right by their country, and scoff at enriching themselves?

capejasmine on March 11, 2010 at 1:42 PM

When EF Obama talks, people run

EF= Empty fool? Everybody’s farce? End of Freedom?

ConservativeTony on March 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

This is not going to happen because A) It’s unconstitutional and B) it’s just Pelosi throwing a bone to the base/media that they are “close” when she obviously doesn’t have the votes.

SouthernGent on March 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM

So shes’ stringing them along like a teenager which when they figure out they have been lied to will make them love her even more?

Guess it doesn’t much matter as one way or the other she will be a member of the minority party in 2011!

Shes’ also tryin to wear down the oppostion, do not be worn down, call, write scream, drive by their homes, mail letters, do all you can to KILL THIS BILL till they give it up.

dhunter on March 11, 2010 at 1:55 PM

highhopes on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Some of us in Reston are fighting back. Reston only appears to be monolithic Left.
Last election we had a surprising % vote for the Republican candidate for Gov.

I aver that if we had one good active candidate among the seven challengers, Moran would loose. I’ve only met two of the challengers, and they have not been aggressive.

NaCly dog on March 11, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Rather than this smoke and mirrors of CBO scoring, how about some real facts about cost to me as a taxpayer who owns real estate in Texas and Obama’s plan to increase Medicaid eligibility by 50%, push the cost of that onto the States of which the feds only reimburse (at present) at 60%.

So the 40% that I already pay for is going to be increased by 50%?

In Texas the State income is generated mostly by sales tax and property tax. Everybody pays sales tax but only us land owners pay property tax, so I already pay twice what some others pay once. I think everyone who pays state taxes, property or income taxes, needs to be told the flat out plain truth about this provision.

Texas Gal on March 11, 2010 at 2:11 PM

This recalculates the CBO’s findings from December, and now they see more federal spending in the first 10 years

These estimates are all horse manure.

Is this only a 10 year program? Is the damn thing going to expire after 10 years? If not, what about the outlook for the second 10 years, and the third 10 years when costs exceed the revenues and supposed cost cuts.

One thing not in the analysis are the incremental costs to the states due to the unfunded mandate medicare expansion. These costs are enormous, but since they’re not “federal” costs, they don’t count even if they result from the bill.

Unbelievable. Have they all gone completely insane?

BacaDog on March 11, 2010 at 2:16 PM

In Texas the State income is generated mostly by sales tax and property tax. Everybody pays sales tax but only us land owners pay property tax, so I already pay twice what some others pay once. I think everyone who pays state taxes, property or income taxes, needs to be told the flat out plain truth about this provision.

Texas Gal on March 11, 2010 at 2:11 PM

–Yeah, but we don’t have any income tax and the property tax I pay in the Dallas area is at least 1/2% less (as a percent of assessed value) than what I paid in Michigan and Illinois years ago. And those states also had/have state (and local) income taxes.

You may pay twice what renters pay, but you get to deduct the property tax (if you itemize) and you’re still very likely paying less than what you’d pay for property taxes alone up north.

And a whole bunch of Texas’ health care-related financial problems are self generated: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-texasbudget_09tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bbdade.html

Jimbo3 on March 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

What about the Slaughter rule?

Skywise on March 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM
This is not going to happen because A) It’s unconstitutional

SouthernGent on March 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM

That’s not going to stop them….they are democrats, their whole goal is to get around the constitution.

tommer74 on March 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM

–Yeah, but we don’t have any income tax and the property tax I pay in the Dallas area is at least 1/2% less (as a percent of assessed value) than what I paid in Michigan and Illinois years ago. And those states also had/have state (and local) income taxes.

You may pay twice what renters pay, but you get to deduct the property tax (if you itemize) and you’re still very likely paying less than what you’d pay for property taxes alone up north.

And a whole bunch of Texas’ health care-related financial problems are self generated: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-texasbudget_09tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bbdade.html

Jimbo3 on March 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I’m not sure how that article relates to my comments. Does this proposed plan increase Medicaid eligibility in Texas by 50% and does the federal reimbursement to Texas for the total cost of Medicaid stay at 60%?

As to your other points:

I deduct property tax from my FEDERAL TAX requirement which only prevents double taxation for the same property at the federal and state .. cough.. local.. level. So in comparison to renters, they still have a better deal in Texas than I do.

Second, I’d perfectly support a State Income Tax in Texas if the legislation is directly tied to an equal decrease of my property tax, thus allowing ALL TEXANS to carry the budget load in Texas. Texas is ranked 12th in property tax out of 50.

Finally, I have no desire to live anywhere else but Texas, been here since I was born. However, full discloser, I am considering some time shares in Florida.

Texas Gal on March 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Let me guess, this youtube video explains this situation too

10000 Pennies

Dave_d on March 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I’m not sure how that article relates to my comments. Does this proposed plan increase Medicaid eligibility in Texas by 50% and does the federal reimbursement to Texas for the total cost of Medicaid stay at 60%?

As to your other points:

I deduct property tax from my FEDERAL TAX requirement which only prevents double taxation for the same property at the federal and state .. cough.. local.. level. So in comparison to renters, they still have a better deal in Texas than I do.

Second, I’d perfectly support a State Income Tax in Texas if the legislation is directly tied to an equal decrease of my property tax, thus allowing ALL TEXANS to carry the budget load in Texas. Texas is ranked 12th in property tax out of 50.

Finally, I have no desire to live anywhere else but Texas, been here since I was born. However, full discloser, I am considering some time shares in Florida.

Texas Gal on March 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM

–My point was that Texas has a bunch of self-inflicted problems in the health care arena. Yes, the Obama bill will increase the unfunded portion, but Texas has some problems of its own making as well so it’s not like the bill is the only reason for Texas’ troubles.

Renters don’t get to participate in the (hoped for) increase in property values. In Texas, the residential property market has held up much better than almost anywhere else, so renters might well say that they’d rather own property in Texas if they could.

Jimbo3 on March 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

–My point was that Texas has a bunch of self-inflicted problems in the health care arena. Yes, the Obama bill will increase the unfunded portion, but Texas has some problems of its own making as well so it’s not like the bill is the only reason for Texas’ troubles.

Renters don’t get to participate in the (hoped for) increase in property values. In Texas, the residential property market has held up much better than almost anywhere else, so renters might well say that they’d rather own property in Texas if they could.

Jimbo3 on March 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I see.. so your previous point had nothing to do with my previous comment since it had nothing to do with Texas and her so-you-called self-inflictions nor did I say anything about this HC Bill being the only reason for Texas troubles.

Texas as faired better than most of the country during this 1st wave of the housing bubble bust mostly because the Texas economy diversified after the bust of the 80′s. In addition, as you probably know, residential real estate in Texas is much more reasonably priced than in most of the rest of the country. The bad news is that indications are that we will be hit by the 2nd wave of the housing bust.

Renters also don’t bear the cost of house insurance, home maintenance, repairs and improvements, in addition to the cost of state property tax (as I mentioned previously). But you see, you just hit of the reason why so many mistakenly think they can jump into the real estate market with a low interest rate … owning a home requires a lot more money than just paying the mortgage.

Texas Gal on March 11, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Is there a single person here who believes that passing a government-run healthcare bill is going to lower the deficit?

It won’t, of course, and to all who agree with me on this, congratulations, you win. You are officially smarter and more insightful than:

- Barry O’Bonehead, the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review and President of the U.S.,
- the various Keynesian economists who earn their living sucking off the teat of the Democrat bureaucrats,
- the entire congressional Democrat caucus,
- the entire American news media, and
- Peter O’Slag, accomplished accountant and head of the CBO.

For all of the self-proclaimed experts and geniuses out there who make a living talking about how stupid and poorly education Sarah Palin is, be aware that she knows this, too.

Governing isn’t nearly as hard as we make it out to be.

Jaibones on March 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM

It’s also and floor cleaner … and a dessert topping.

ya2daup on March 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM