Breaking: CBO releases the actual report; Update: Almost all $940 billion incurred in just six years; Update: Preliminary

posted at 11:25 am on March 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It’s much as advertised. Thanks to its spending provisions mainly starting in 2014, the reconciliation bill combined with the Senate version has a total cost of $940 billion, with deficit savings of around $138 billion (via No Runny Eggs):

CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted—would be the difference between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senate-passed bill, H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5). …

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).3 The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.

Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation bill would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP.

Undoubtedly, this is good news for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. The overall deficit reduction number from the CBO, as well as the under-$1 trillion price tag, gives them some momentum towards winning the votes of reluctant moderates. Whether they can overcome the issues of abortion and Demon Pass will still have to be seen, but at least on cost they have some ammunition.

That also applies to the reluctance in the Senate to take this bill back up again.  The House version with the reconciliation package saves more money off of the deficit than the Senate version alone, at least according to the CBO.  If the Senate balks at considering the reconciliation changes, they’ll essentially be writing off supposed savings to the deficit.

Republicans set part of their argument against the House effort on the CBO response, but not all of it.  This doesn’t help build opposition to the bill, but it doesn’t stop it on the other grounds.  Expect the GOP to push hard on abortion and the individual mandate, as well as Demon Pass in response.

Update (AP): Here’s the key table from CBO’s letter to Pelosi. Via Philip Klein, want to see what a shabby fraud these cost estimates are? Check out the line for “Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions”:

cbo

This is why they’re delaying the start of the program, of course. If it kicked in right away, the decade-long estimate would obviously be well into the trillions. So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs — or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate — through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. A perfect ending to this travesty.

Update (Ed): I’ve received a lot of e-mail asking me to emphasize that this is a preliminary CBO report.  That’s true, but that’s exactly what was promised, too.  Politically, I doubt it makes much difference — and generally speaking, the preliminary reports are in the ballpark with the eventual final analysis.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Isn’t it sad that something being under a trillion is good news.

This thing is a disaster.

gophergirl on March 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM

To the barricades!

joe_doufu on March 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I asked on another post for someone to figure a rate of return on the savings for the ” non-actual ” cost per the dems and no one has answered?

bluegrass on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

This isn’t even an official estimate. This is a preliminary estimate sent to Nancy Peloski.

andy85719 on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

….because EVERY government program follows the initial targets and estimates……can anyone name ONE?

search4truth on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

The CBO has sold it,s soul to the Dems.This report is BULL S**T

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

We save 138 billion over 10 years with this thing?

Quick Question: What was the montly deficit for February?

Notorious GOP on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Climate scientists from UN now working at CBO.

tarpon on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Absolute fraudulent nonsense.

I can’t believe tax dollars are being wasted on this nonsense, you could have had MSNBC put this together for free.

NoDonkey on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I wish they would give the numbers for the first 10 years after the program actually starts paying out.

Rocks on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

total cost of $940 billion, with deficit savings of around $138 billion:

Spending $940 bill. to save $138 bill?
Am I missing something here?
This is good news?!

Badger40 on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Game over?

Vyce on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Kids of 2010 Bury Time Capsule Preserving U.S. Constitution, After-Tax Paychecks for Future Generations http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/03/kids-of-2010-bury-time-capsule.html

Mervis Winter on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

This still doesn’t include the doc fix, right?

changer1701 on March 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Isn’t it funny that lots of shiite nowadays is coming in around $800-$900 billion range….it’s just below the new “expensive” threshold of 1 trillion.

we are being operantly conditioned like rats and dogs. If they now WAG something in at $600billion, it’ll look cheap in comparison.

Resist every last thin dollar. they’re your childrens.

ted c on March 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM

It kills me to say it, but I think Pelosi is going to get the votes. This fits right into the narrative they are trying to concoct. I’m despondent.

Anonymous Finch on March 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I’m curious how did the CBO score the Senate bill. Is this less than the Senate bill or more. Where is that trillion dollar savings the president say was in the bill. This sucks.

Brat4life on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

What’s 940 billion multiplied by, oh I don’t know, six?

Sharke on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Look at the table for the numbers.

2010-2013 it only costs $2 billion, $5 billion, $5 billion, $5 billion, then in 2014 when the plans kick in it ramps up…

2014 – $54 billion
2015 – $104 billion
2016 – $161 billion
2017 – $187 billion
2018 – $201 billion
2019 – $216 billion

And this is supposedly going to not only pay for itself in the second decade, but create several billion in surplus?

Enoxo on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I keep asking, and maybe I’m dense but help me out: No one in their right mind actually believes that this trillion-dollar welfare program is going to make the deficit go down…right?

Why are we playing this silly game? This is another financial disaster = He Lies.

Jaibones on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Talking time is over…

d1carter on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Back-breaker… we’re toast.

MT on March 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM

The CBO has sold it,s soul to the Dems.This report is BULL S**T

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM
//
Yeah,let’s hope everyone else realizes this too.

ohiobabe on March 18, 2010 at 11:32 AM

they had the votes before this push ever began, which is why they are doing it. The soon to turn “yes” votes from no, have been yes’s all along. they just told Emmanuael they weren’t going to be so publicly till the very end and to provide some sort of PR cover like this fraud from the “non-partisian” CBO to hide behind just before the vote.

jp on March 18, 2010 at 11:32 AM

So the Dem log jam since July 2009… has been about the price tag alone???

Funny, I though abortion language, Medicare and single payer were the big Dem issues…

Any Republican worth a grain of salt can simply say “The CBO has done an admirable job of guessing the numbers, but accuracy costs money and jobs.”

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 11:32 AM

The CBO has sold it,s soul to the Dems.This report is BULL S**T

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

or they woke up with a Horses head in their bed or a freezer full of cash

jp on March 18, 2010 at 11:33 AM

In total seriousness, can someone explain to me how spending $940 billion dollars reduces the deficit by $138 billion? Does the health care bill invest in stocks or something? How is this even possible?

Mighty Skip on March 18, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Static Analysis

jp on March 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM

So in reality, it’ll cost twice that.

Jim-Rose on March 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Think I’ll cheer up and watch some March Madness before they take that away from me too.

Still have faith this can be stopped.

gophergirl on March 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM

CBO was ordered to count $80 billion in savings from the student loan takeover, even though this assumes permanently low govermnment borrowing rates that nobody believes will happen. Sen. Gregg got them to produce a more realistic savings of only $40 billion. So this entire report is BS and based on assumptions that CBO was ordered to make.

See NRO for details.

rockmom on March 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Mighty Skip on March 18, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I wondered that above.
I feel stupid here.
Really, what is up with that?!

Badger40 on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

The “undecideds” could use this as cover to move to “yes” but that would be disingenuous. Everybody knew that the numbers would have to look like this: Slightly under $1 trillion over first 10 years, around $100 billion deficit reduction first 10 years, and at least $1 billion in cost savings to budget between reconciliation bill and Senate bill (in order to allow the reconciliation bill to pass procedural muster in the Senate). If any of these three things weren’t coming from CBO there wouldn’t be a bill, there wouldn’t be a vote, it would be shelved until they got these things in place. I think everybody knew that (which is why it took so long to get the CBO score). The real question now is: What did Nancy have to do (put in or pull out or tweak) in order to make these numbers line up? Until we know that the true impact of this news is up in the air. (They could have just inserted a clause saying there will be an immediate 10% tax increase on everybody with a job and the CBO numbers would have worked out just fine. They obviously didn’t do that, but what did they do to get these numbers?)

jdp629 on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Still have faith this can be stopped.

gophergirl on March 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM

So do I. The fence-sitters can justify anything they want but I still think the outrage of the public and the potential to lose their job trumps 940B and/or a spanking from Nancy.

sherry on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

rockmom on March 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Thanks for the tip

Badger40 on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Isn’t it sad that something being under a trillion is good news.

This thing is a disaster.

gophergirl on March 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Its a good thing, then, that President Pivot didn’t say ObamaCare needed to be less than $2 trillion. Maybe he should have, and then today he could say the program comes in at less than 50% of what he would have accepted.

Relativity.

BobMbx on March 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I live in Tennessee. We have a system called TennCare which was promised to be the same kind of thing — will save money, pay for itself, do a better job of managing healthcare for the uninsured and uninsurable.

Guess what? TennCare has eaten the budget here in Tennesssee. Two years ago, they disenrolled 350,000 to try to stem the tide, but it is still rolling inexorably over us all.

Anyone who thinks the government can do a better job than private enterprise is just not living in the sane world with the rest of us. (Sane is not a misspelling)

I’m starting to get this sinking feeling that we are going to lose this one. Healthcare takeover is going to happen by the majority party. Let’s not call it Congress. The Dems own this one. And they’re going to be Slaughtered by their own rule come November. And it will be very, very hard to undo all of this.

Heaven help us all.

Tennman on March 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Wow, let\’s pass Obamacare now!

GW_SS-Delta on March 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I believe Bernie Madoff is running this CBO from prison!

bluegrass on March 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

So the new estimated deficit reduction for 2010-2019 is $118 billion + $20 billion if reconciliation goes through, for an new $138 billion reduction in the deficit over ten years. Meanwhile, February’s deficit alone was over $200 billion.

$13.8 billion in deficit reduction for each year’s budget is a drop in the bucket. It’s meaningless.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aA8lChe4zUQU

U.S. Deficit for 2009 Totals $1.4 Trillion, Budget Office Says

Lets round up the $13.8 billion to $14 billion, just to make the math easy.

$14 billion in reduction divided by $1.4 trillion deficit is 0.01 of the budget deficit, or 1 %

ObamaCare would at best reduce the yearly deficit by one percent. And we’d have to surrender so much of our freedoms for that.

The CBO scoring is a sick joke.

rbj on March 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

On my way home yesterday I was thinking about all this and it hit me and this may have be stated before but most of the benefits(using the term loosely) are unconstitutional and if properly ruled on by the court will be thrown out. What is not unconstitutional are the new taxes and fees. So what I fear is the real effect of all this is we will get the new taxes and none of the so called benefits.

RobD on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

So this entire report is BS and based on assumptions that CBO was ordered to make.

See NRO for details.

rockmom on March 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Correct. As mentioned before, CBO can only score what’s given to them, and can’t make any assumptions about whether something will work as advertised (or in this case, whether the proposed legislation will actually become law, or be further changed, or be dumped altogether).

Nobody really believes these numbers, they are just a political tool.

Missy on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

This is the downside of overfocusing on numbers. The issue remains the same.

How?

By my upcoming Medicare benefits?

I suspect so.

AnninCA on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Name one government program that has cost what was predicted. This number means nothing and the Republicans should trot out the original social security prediction, the medicare prediction, et al and then allow the actual costs speak for themselves.

This number is a joke especially because it takes money for 4 years before it spends anything.

http://alecsavestheworld.blogspot.com

alecj on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Yay, the CBO came back with a number everyone knows is BS, because the parameters they were given were BS.

Midas on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

So do I. The fence-sitters can justify anything they want but I still think the outrage of the public and the potential to lose their job trumps 940B and/or a spanking from Nancy.

sherry on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

We need the GOP to stall until Easter if they can. I think Easter break is the tipping point. No way they survive going home to angry people. No way.

gophergirl on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

It must be tough to crunch numbers without a spine.

badtemper on March 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

The CBO has sold it,s soul to the Dems.This report is BULL S**T

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

So…when this is shown to be a bald-faced lie, can we skin the CBO liars alive?

Jaibones on March 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM

So, our taxes will explode, AND our insurance rates will climb?

Awesome!!

cntrlfrk on March 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Laura Ingraham just said the real report still isn’t out.

OmahaConservative on March 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I can’t get it to load. Does it include the $250 Billion “Dr. Fix?”?

I suspect that answer is still “no.”

Rae on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Climate scientists from UN now working at CBO.

tarpon on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

.
The non-partisan CBO prides itself on inaccuracy, like all government agencies.

Dasher on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Drudge is reporting that this is not the actual report i repeat not the actual report.It has NOT been released.

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The claimed “deficit reduction” is actually $119 billion, which at first blush would appear to meet the minimum requirement of a $1 billion over HR3950. My memory may be a bit hazy, but if it serves, there’s actually two parts to that:

- That the $1 billion in additional “deficit reduction” over the “parent” bill happen in the first 5 fiscal years.
- That the succeeding years show no increase in deficit spending over the parent bill in any year.

Funny thing is, the FY2010-FY2014 deficit change in Wreckonciliation versus HR3950 is +$2 billion (not exactly -$1 billion), and FY2017 shows an increase.

steveegg on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Great, then they won’t need to raise taxes right? right????

Capitalist Infidel on March 18, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Thanks to its spending provisions mainly starting in 2014,

It’s a sleight of hand. THE BENEFITS DO NOT START UNTIL 2014, so the price tag is inaccurate. LIARS!

And HOW DO THEY THINK THEY’LL PAY FOR THIS???

Only a DemoncRAT would think that you save $$$ by spending it.

conservative pilgrim on March 18, 2010 at 11:41 AM

I just don’t see enough fence sitters jumping into the manure spreader to get passage. The only other option will be deem and pass which will totally destroy the dem leadership.

jbh45 on March 18, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Laura Ingraham just said the real report still isn’t out and this is just spin the dems are spinning.

OmahaConservative on March 18, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Ummm… if we don’t pass the darned thing, wouldn’t that save us some $940 Billion?

This whole thing reminds me of the story about the woman spending $4000 while shopping, but “saving” $1200 in the process!

What a bunch of morons….

AW1 Tim on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

So, our taxes will explode, AND our insurance rates will climb?

Awesome!!

cntrlfrk on March 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM

It’s a win-win : higher taxes, higher premiums, higher health care costs. What could go wrong?

Dasher on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Who gives a flying fig how much saving there is IF I LOSE MY LIBERTY!!!!!!!

Elizabetty on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Drudge is reporting that this is not the actual report i repeat not the actual report.It has NOT been released.

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The actual bill hasn’t been released either. Would be nice to read the death sentence for USSA.

conservative pilgrim on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Thanks to the swing voters who had to vote for Obama just so they could be part of history.

We must be a country of financial illiterates; this thing is going to crush us.

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The CBO has sold it,s soul to the Dems.This report is BULL S**T

thmcbb on March 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

The CBO never had a soul it seems.

The CBO was built by democrats, to serve democrats. It has fulfilled it’s purpose to this end.

Chaz706 on March 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Who gives a flying fig how much saving there is IF I LOSE MY LIBERTY!!!!!!!

Elizabetty on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Those are minor details to DemocRATS.

conservative pilgrim on March 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Oh, and let’s be real with the numbers too. The “Doctor Fix” is costing $400 million in a separate bill. Added together, this is $1,339,999,999,999.99

It’s too easy for us to start thinking smaller by calling a trillion a workable number. That’s 1,000,000,000,000. A thousand billion. A thousand thousand million.

It’s also sheer hubris.

Tennman on March 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

It isn’t even a real score. It is a crap score Nancy ordered the CBO to produce so that she can pass this boondoggle bill.

andy85719 on March 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Expect the GOP to push hard on abortion and the individual mandate, as well as Demon Pass in response.

Quite a political strategy. The GOP has done well using policy and economic ammunition thus far…without it the overheated political rhetoric would be seen as even more overblown. Dispense with it entirely, and I don’t see how you win this one.

ernesto on March 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Whether they can overcome the issues of abortion and Demon Pass will still have to be seen, but at least on cost they have some ammunition.

Yes, $940 billion is really ammunition against a country that is going nuclear over Gov’t spending.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Check last – I missed Table 5, which threw in the student-loan program.

steveegg on March 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Some of you younger people should remember this and ten years from now come back and recheck the math.

Skandia Recluse on March 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

No doctor fix here add $300 billion in cost. FAIL

Jeff2161 on March 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Rae on March 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I think that was already voted on in a different bill. The doctor fix was never to be put into this bill. I think the doctor fixed passed.

Brat4life on March 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Another Democrat has announced that he will change his “yes” vote to “no” on ObamaCare.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) has informed his caucus that he will oppose the legislation when it comes up for a vote.

amerpundit on March 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

andy85719 on March 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM

CBO = Can Be Owned.

fogw on March 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Some of you younger people should remember this and ten years from now come back and recheck the math.

Skandia Recluse on March 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

What? and lose their spot in line to see the doctor? I don’t think so.

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Quite a political strategy. The GOP has done well using policy and economic ammunition thus far…without it the overheated political rhetoric would be seen as even more overblown. Dispense with it entirely, and I don’t see how you win this one.

ernesto on March 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM

The individual mandate is not political rhetoric. It’s an unprededented policy that for the very first time puts a demand on the people that as a condition of citizenship you MUST purchase a product. Something tells me this won’t stand up to the test.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I wondered that above.
I feel stupid here.
Really, what is up with that?!

Badger40 on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

It means that Democrats are proud that they will have collected a supposed surplus of 138 billion tax dollars from the working stiffs. Yes? No?

Patrick S on March 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Amazing how costs appear one year disappear the next, or change wildly year-to-year.

Jeff2161 on March 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM

We’re talking a difference of 60 billion dollars. This is stupid.

darwin on March 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Calculations
By
Obama

LibTired on March 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM

And one more thing – that’s with the CBO-estimated $56 billion in “deficit reduction” from the federal takeover of the student loan program.

steveegg on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

There will be a Byrd rule challenge to this when the reconciliation bill gets to the Senate. The Senate has never approved authorizing legislation for a federal takeover – it hasn’t even been voted out of committee – and they can’t do it through reconciliation.

rockmom on March 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM

That argument is further over the heads of the non-politically sophisticated than say, “it will put more debt on our children”. Losing the deficit angle is a HUGE loss in terms of framing a message against Obamacare.

ernesto on March 18, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Good news! According to

Decider

There are no new taxes.
Decider on March 18, 2010

Isn’t that great!

/sarc

Chip on March 18, 2010 at 11:51 AM

So…a fraudulent CBO Report for a fraudulent bill. It’s pretty awful when even the President admits last night on Fox News that no one knows what’s in the bill.

kingsjester on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care and the aging of the U.S. population.

On the CBO’s main website it says this. How can you make a comment like that and be “non-partisan”? They basically say that we need to correct policy. But CBO isn’t suppose to be a policy “think tank” that issues their approval of various legislation. They’re simply suppose to by mathematicians. They’re suppose to punch numbers and tell us the statistical data. They aren’t suppose to interpret it. Numbers, costs are what they are. This is ridiculous!!

Sultry Beauty on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

From the CBO report:

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and revenues, many of which would amend H.R. 3590. It also includes amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education.

CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

In other words, the CBO needs an actual proposal to give a real score regarding the reconciliation bill.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

There is NO OFFICIAL CBO SCORE!

Just More Lies.

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs — or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate — through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. A perfect ending to this travesty.

SHHHH!

Don’t you know that this is important for his Presidency?

Do you want him to fail, you teabagging racist Nazi traitor?

Good Lt on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I’m impressed, closing the drug plan donut hole saves 200 million in year 2012 ! Must be the unicorns.

Jeff2161 on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

It’s a win-win : higher taxes, higher premiums, higher health care costs. What could go wrong?

Dasher on March 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Don’t forget higher interest rates once our bond rating drops after the world sees how wasteful we are!

Wheeee!

cntrlfrk on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

That was published over an hour ago. The report was released since then.

Good Lt on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Sultry Beauty on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The CBO is simply stating a fact. A fact that 100% of us can agree on. Health care spending by the Federal Gov’t is consuming the Federal budget.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM
That argument is further over the heads of the non-politically sophisticated than say, “it will put more debt on our children”. Losing the deficit angle is a HUGE loss in terms of framing a message against Obamacare.

ernesto on March 18, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Which is why Pelosi, Obama and the Dems are manipulating that “angle” through the CBO.

Odie1941 on March 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM

There is NO OFFICIAL CBO SCORE!

Just More Lies.

Dorvillian on March 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM

So where did HotAir get the link to the official CBO score?

It’s the first hyperlink in the story. Good lord you are a fool.

uknowmorethanme on March 18, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4