Green Room

Good news from the CBO: Late-term abortions reduce the deficit

posted at 2:16 pm on July 9, 2013 by

Unreal:

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system. The CBO made these determinations when doing its official “Cost Estimate” of a federal bill that would prohibit abortions at 20 weeks or later into pregnancy (except in cases of reported rape, incest against a minor or to save the life of the mother).  “Because the costs of about 40 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program, CBO estimates that federal spending for Medicaid will rise to the extent that enacting H.R. 1797 results in additional births and deliveries relative to current law,” says CBO. “H.R. 1790 would result in increased spending for Medicaid,” says CBO. “Since a portion of Medicaid is paid for by state governments, CBO estimates that state spending on the program would increase by about $170 million over the 2014-2023 period.”

Over at Townhall, I ask a few questions about the ethics of producing such a score.  For instance:

- If late-term abortions “reduce the deficit,” how much would we “save” by aborting more children?  How many of abortions would it take to make the whole enterprise deficit neutral?  And while we’re at it, why limit this experiment to very young human life?  Surely the active killing of at least some indigent and infirm Americans would produce deficit savings, right?

- Also, since we’re indulging these amoral calculations, perhaps CBO could project the potential economic benefits and budgetary savings from the hypothetical re-institution of slavery.  Second look at indentured servitude, CBO?

Click through for a quasi-summary of the phone call I received from a CBO spokesperson, who insisted that our discussion be off the record.  In short: They’re bound by law to score legislation after it’s been reported out of committee, although sometimes members make informal requests for scores on particular bills.  I asked if any such request was made on this legislation, and if so, by whom.  CBO would not comment.  As for the “we’re mandated to do this” explanation — which seems entirely plausible — why can’t I find the score for the Senate Judiciary Committee-passed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S. 150)?  Applying CBO’s logic, wouldn’t gun deaths reduce the deficit, too?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Sick.

terryannonline on July 9, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I thought one of the arguments for amnesty was that they would be paying taxes and that would be good for everyone. So how can any abortion be a net gain for the deficit? Aren’t they future taxpayers too, or does that only apply when its convenient for progressive politics?

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

Is that you zombie Margaret Sanger??

I asked if any such request was made on this legislation, and if so, by whom. CBO would not comment. As for the “we’re mandated to do this” explanation — which seems entirely plausible — why can’t I find the score for the Senate Judiciary Committee-passed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S. 150)?

Hmmm. Well I guess we have our answer then.

LtBarnwell02 on July 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Given the decline in our virtue and morality, I will not be the least bit surprised when within a decade or two, some “Gang of 8″ proposes “Death Reform” legislation claiming that by increasing the number of deaths of babies and seniors the debt will reduced by $1.23T according to CBO scoring…

DrDeano on July 9, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Most things are scored on a ten-year basis. No taxable earnings at age ten. Of course, for minority youth, the current administration policies ensure that taxable earnings are at least 50% unlikely at ages 20, 30, 40, etc. so really, it’s better for them to die, then, and decrease the surplus population.

winoceros on July 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM

sharrukin, I actually tried to address that inconsistency in my Townhall post. It’s sick, but here it is:

CBO recently determined that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would significantly reduce deficits — but not aborting would-be US citizens would increase them? I think the reason for this apparent disconnect is related to the “scoring windows.” CBO concluded that adult illegal immigrants would be able to work and pay taxes immediately (thus affecting the ten-year window), whereas newborns are more of a long-term investment. Therefore, pre-born infants’ deaths would cost less than their births in the short term. This entire discussion is surreal.

Guy Benson on July 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM

It’s whatever reality is more convenient for the statist cause. In Amnesty it’s that all the workers will not be dregs of society and on the government dole, no, they’ll be productive taxpayers.

For abortion it’s not that the babies will be productive taxpayers, no, they’ll be dregs on society and on the government dole so that will cost the government more money.

If you get a twinge of racism in the statist/liberal arguments because a large majority of immigrants are hispanic and a large majority of abortions are by black women and girls well that’s a dog whistle for how racist you really are.

The constant changing of the rules and smugness about it is one of the more frustrating features of today’s democrats. And the Party of Stupid, true to form, is too stupid to use this against them in any meaningful way.

LtBarnwell02 on July 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM

So how can any abortion be a net gain for the deficit? Aren’t they future taxpayers too, or does that only apply when its convenient for progressive politics?

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM

A majority of Baby-Americans who die by abortion are created by parents who do not pay income taxes and receive government welfare benefits of one sort or another – including the money to pay for the abortion.

Many Aborting-Americans are born into govt-dependency and will raise the children they don’t abort in the govt-dependency lifestyle.

So, the CBO in its cold calculations probably does not score a large number of those babies as becoming net productive, tax paying, citizens – and they are actuarially correct in doing so.

Is this what we have become?

DrDeano on July 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM

CBO concluded that adult illegal immigrants would be able to work and pay taxes immediately (thus affecting the ten-year window), whereas newborns are more of a long-term investment. Therefore, pre-born infants’ deaths would cost less than their births in the short term. This entire discussion is surreal.

Guy Benson on July 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Surreal indeed and amoral. According to that bizarre logic eliminating all children under the age of ten would be an economic positive for the nation rather than the suicide it actually is. Bureaucrats don’t seem to be able to apply the simplest logic or common sense to their projects. Of course CBO tried to sell the fiction that Obamacare wasn’t the budget buster we all knew it was going to be. Their protests of neutrality are less and less convincing.

What I suspect happened is that they were asked to include this in their report to bolster the leftist abortion argument.

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Ever notice how every leftist policy is touted to be ‘good’ for… well, everything, but the reality is always precisely the opposite?

Late-term abortion? Well, it’s good for the economy!

Illegal immigration? Well, that’s good for us too – but guess what…

Making those illegals legal? Hey, that’s another layer of good for the economy frosting!

And at the center of it is always the CBO, telling everyone exactly what the libs want them to say, reality be damned.

Midas on July 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM

A majority of Baby-Americans who die by abortion are created by parents who do not pay income taxes and receive government welfare benefits of one sort or another – including the money to pay for the abortion.

Many Aborting-Americans are born into govt-dependency and will raise the children they don’t abort in the govt-dependency lifestyle.

DrDeano on July 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM

And illegals won’t take advantage of those same government give-away programs? California must be a state enjoying an economic boom then? Odd, because it doesn’t seem to be working out that way.

There is some truth to the idea that dependence is learned in a family, but it can also be unlearned if leftist policies are done away with.

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Really late term abortions could completely remove poverty!

gwelf on July 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM

The constant changing of the rules and smugness about it is one of the more frustrating features of today’s democrats. And the Party of Stupid, true to form, is too stupid to use this against them in any meaningful way.

LtBarnwell02 on July 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I used to believe that the GOP was the party of stupid. I don’t anymore. They believe in the leftist argument, but do not want to take it to the same extremes as the Democrats do. They aren’t stupid…they just play stupid for the conservative voters.

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM

They also stimulate the economy, create jobs and make woman feel fresh and clean even if the killing, procedure was done in a less than clean setting.

Dr. Frank Enstine on July 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM

this puts a price on human life. it creates a society that values people by how much they are “worth.” if you’re not “worth” enough, it’s ethical to kill you! terrifying.

Sachiko on July 9, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Good news! They also enables the US to follow Europe down the suicide-by-demographics road!

Fact: There were 159.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1940.

Fact: There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950.

Fact: There were 5.1 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1960.

Fact: There were 3.7 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1970.

Fact: There were 3.2 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1980.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1990.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2000.

Fact: There were 3.3 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2005.

Fact: There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States in 2011 for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.

How has this decline impacted Americans?

Fact: The average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes and gets back 3 times as much in benefits as he contributed.

Fact: In 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2% of his salary to sustain the seniors of his time.

Fact: In 1950, the average worker had to pay only 2% of his salary to sustain the seniors of his time.

Fact: In 2011, the average worker paid 11% of his salary to sustain the seniors of his time.

What will future workers pay, EVEN IF THE POPULATION REMAINS STABLE?

Projection: In 2031, the average worker will have to pay 17% of his salary to sustain the seniors of his time. This is a staggering sum, considering that it is apart from all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare, whose costs are exploding.

Projection: By 2020, every penny in tax revenues taken in by the US Treasury will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt service, the latter of which will amount to $1 trillion alone.

Projection: When today’s college students reach retirement (about 2054), Social Security alone will require a 16.6% payroll tax, one-third greater than today’s rate, according to the non-partisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

Projection: When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise to 25.7% – more than one of every four dollars workers will earn that year.

Projection: If Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D are included, the total Social Security/Medicare burden will climb to 37% of payroll by 2054 – one in three dollars of taxable payroll, and twice the size of today’s payroll tax burden, according to the non-partisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

Projection: More than one-third of the wages workers earn in 2054 will need to be committed to pay benefits promised under current law. That is before any bridges or highways are built and before any teachers’ or police officers’ salaries are paid.

Projection: By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, the Medicare will require nearly half of all income tax dollars, according to the non-partisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

Projection: By 2060, Social Security and Medicare will require nearly three out of four income tax dollars.

Projection: When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise to 25.7% – more than one of every four dollars workers will earn that year.

Projection: If Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D are included, the total Social Security/Medicare burden will climb to 37% of payroll by 2054 – one in three dollars of taxable payroll, and twice the size of today’s payroll tax burden, according to the non-partisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

Projection: More than one-third of the wages workers earn in 2054 will need to be committed to pay benefits promised under current law. That is before any bridges or highways are built and before any teachers’ or police officers’ salaries are paid.

Projection: By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, the Medicare will require nearly half of all income tax dollars, according to the non-partisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

Projection: By 2060, Social Security and Medicare will require nearly three out of four income tax dollars.

The links for the government and actual nonpartisan sources can be found in my post, “‘Lies’ About Social Security and Medicare Pandering Politicians Never Told You.”

Obviously, this is unsustainable…and we know where it leads. Four decades ago, white Europeans began to decide that they just couldn’t be bothered to have children. Of course, someone was going to be needed to pay the taxes that support the luxurious safety net to which those white Europeans believed they were entitled. So, they ‘imported’ their ‘children’ from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Unfortunately, this entire ‘solution’ blew up in their faces when they realised that their ‘children’ found that they much preferred to join them in the welfare hammock. As a result, the welfare state expanded greatly…and the tax base continued to lag behind. I call this ‘suicide by demographics.’

Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I used to believe that the GOP was the party of stupid. I don’t anymore. They believe in the leftist argument, but do not want to take it to the same extremes as the Democrats do. They aren’t stupid…they just play stupid for the conservative voters.

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I’m almost as cynical as you. I still believe they’re stupid because I think they think they could run things “better” if they were in power but don’t know how to make that happen. Obviously there are exceptions.

LtBarnwell02 on July 9, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Good news from the CBO: Late-term abortions reduce the deficit

So poorly educated second or third world immigrants and their children are good for America and our economy but our own children are bad for American and our economy?

It makes no sense, up is down and black is white.

RJL on July 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Not a single country in all of Europe has a fertility rate of 2.1, which is considered the replacement rate, ie, the rate necessary for the population to remain stable and we’ve seen what has happened to their budgets. Even before the financial meltdown, Spain and Greece, in particular, had fertility rates so low that their populations would halve themselves with successive generations.

Russia? FR = 1.54. It has a population around 141 million now. By 2040, its population is expected to be 110 million.

Japan? FR = 1.3. Last year, for the first time, more adult diapers were sold in Japan than baby diapers.

China? FR = 1.6

The US? FR = 1.93 in 2010. The lowest it has been since it last lowest ever: 1973, which was, coincidentally, the year Roe v Wade was handed down.

More depressingly, middle class and educated women have a FR of only 1.6. To put that into context, the EU has an overall FR of 1.5, although much of it is driven by Muslim immigrants, who have larger families.

And, before anyone says ‘Well, Mexican-Americans will replace disappearing white taxpayers!,’ hold on a minute. In just three years – between 2007 and 2010 – the birthrate for Mexican-Americans dropped an astonishing 23%.

Why do we need people? Well, apart from needing a tax base so that the entire country doesn’t become Detroit, you have to have enough young workers to pay for the ever-increasing aging population.

Several decades ago, white Europeans decided that they just couldn’t be bothered to have children. Of course, this presented a huge problem given the fact that they not only loved their luxurious welfare hammocks, they believed they were entitled to them. Konstantinos in Athens thought he was entitled to retire to his Speedos at 50 at 97% of his highest annual salary and it was up to the government to figure out how to pay for it. And, while Marina and the rest of the bamboccioni in Italy find it perfectly acceptable to be sleeping in their childhood bedrooms when they are in their late 30s and have absolutely no problem with suing their elderly parents for allowances, they aren’t having children, which is probably a good thing, nor is anyone hiring them, which is likewise understandable. Soooo, there aren’t enough workers paying taxes to support the retirees, which brings us to…

THE USA! USA! USA! Beginning on 1 January 2010 and continuing through 2020, at least, 10,000 Americans will become eligible for Social Security and Medicare EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Now, if 1/3rd of Americans are receiving some sort of ‘food assistance’ from the government – a number higher than the number of Americans in the entire work force of American households are already on food stamps, and our labour force participation rate is at the level it was in 1979, and we aren’t birthin’ no babies, just who exactly do who is going to pay for all of the Big Government programmes that so many Americans just love?

In 2010, John Kitchen of the US Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin published a study entitled:

‘Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World—and At What Cost?’

By 2020, Kitchen and Chinn project the amount of US Treasury debt that foreign governments will have to buy in order to finance our spending and debt will have to rise to about 19 percent of the rest of the world’s GDP, which they say is . . . do-able . . . BUT TOTALLY NEVER GONNA HAPPEN UNREALISTIC.

Whether the rest of the world will want to do it is another matter. A future that presumes the rest of the planet will sink a fifth of its GDP into U.S. Treasuries is no future at all.

Progs always say that we are 5% of the world’s population, but use 25% of the planet’s resources, which, according to them, is a very bad, racist, oppressive, selfish, and mean thing to do.

Evidently, being 5% of the world’s population and expecting the equivalent of the Coolies to build our modern-day railroads, which are known as Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, free college, subsidised housing, cradle-to-grave welfare, etc., by demanding that the rest of the world spend 19% OF THE GLOBAL GDP EVERY YEAR ON US TREASURIES beginning in 2020 while we sit on our couches eating Twinkies watching American Idol while our solar-panel-generated air conditioners are blasting away because “we are so trying to save the planet, man” is perfectly acceptable.

To argue otherwise would be, well, racist…

Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

On the plus side, I dont think anyone will get far saying late term abortions should happen just to save 40 million (with a M) a year. Course I also think a democrat asked for the scoring as they do NOT score every little bill.

Zaggs on July 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Margaret Sanger dancing in her grave.

NotCoach on July 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Killing grandma and grandpa probably saves money too. This is just further proof that our government is out of control and has NO regard for its citizens, or for that matter, human life. Disgusting.

zoyclem on July 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM

So does killing people who mooch off the system.

John the Libertarian on July 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM

” 40 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program,”

Really?! Wtf is going on in this country?

JustTruth101 on July 9, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Hmm… who do I trust more? The CBO? The IRS? The NSA? The FBI?

John the Libertarian on July 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

This sort of reasoning doesn’t surprise me. I remember taking public economics in college and our professor telling us that illegal immigration was economically wonderful because the illegals would pay in payroll taxes, but have sufficiently low lifespans that they’d be likely to die off before they collect social security.

This is the sort of demented thinking you get when everything comes down to the dollar.

Stoic Patriot on July 9, 2013 at 4:50 PM

When it comes to human life, budgetary calculations shouldn’t be relevant.

That said, the results of such a calculation don’t surprise me. Abortions are disproportionately performed on poor and minority women. I have no doubt that the CBO’s calculations show that the aggregate of the aborted children would be “takers” not “makers” in our society if they were allowed to live.

LukeinNE on July 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

I remember when Philip Morris tried to use that same logic to defend smoking. They ended up getting sued by the federal government. But that was a few years ago and I guess the concept of “old and cold” still works.

teejk on July 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM

I thought one of the arguments for amnesty was that they would be paying taxes and that would be good for everyone. So how can any abortion be a net gain for the deficit? Aren’t they future taxpayers too, or does that only apply when its convenient for progressive politics?

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM

To put Guy’s answer into a shorter and sicker summary – Kids suck resources until they are 18 23 27.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2013 at 7:03 PM

CBO concluded that adult illegal immigrants would be able to work and pay taxes immediately (thus affecting the ten-year window), whereas newborns are more of a long-term investment. Therefore, pre-born infants’ deaths would cost less than their births in the short term. This entire discussion is surreal.

Guy Benson on July 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

While the CBO only officially scores items on a 10-year cycle, they will on request from a Congresscritter expand that cycle some. An enterprising Congresscritter could ask to expand it out to the long-term actuarial 75 years, where the fallacy of looking at things from a perspective benefiting only Baby Boomers would be exposed.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2013 at 7:09 PM

To put Guy’s answer into a shorter and sicker summary – Kids suck resources until they are 18 23 27.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Being serious, that’s not entirely true. People who have children tend to bust their hump providing for them. Those who don’t have children often don’t go to the extra effort to provide for what they don’t have. I wonder how much economic activity that additional effort provides?

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM

So does euthanization of people over 65, but it’s morally wrong and murder.

portlandon on July 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Being serious, that’s not entirely true. People who have children tend to bust their hump providing for them. Those who don’t have children often don’t go to the extra effort to provide for what they don’t have. I wonder how much economic activity that additional effort provides?

sharrukin on July 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM

A lot more than the $0.00 the CBO assumes. Specifically, all they counted is the annual federal Medicaid cost of 1,100 annual additional live births (40% Medicaid-paid of 25% non-aborts of the 11,000 annual post-20-week abortions), and then ratcheted both the number of births and the cost per birth up for the years after 2014.

Besides, the “suck resources” is a net federal tax-and-spending perspective, not a macroeconomic one.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2013 at 7:48 PM

So does euthanization of people over 65, but it’s morally wrong and murder.

portlandon on July 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM

In the ObamiNation, the state decides those definitions.

I can’t wait for my ration of Soylent Green…at least until I become that ration.

Steve Eggleston on July 9, 2013 at 7:50 PM

If we can just kill the “right” people think of the money we could save.

CW on July 9, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Just think how much money “we” would “save” if we killed every adult over the age of 65? Social Security would be saved!!!

Oh…. wait….

Wendya on July 9, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Until they score the cost of abortions at the 26th trimester I can’t take this scoring serious.

ButterflyDragon on July 9, 2013 at 10:42 PM

So it’s NOT good to be “fertile”? I’m so confused!

UnderstandingisPower on July 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Scrapping welfare and social security would create massive surpluses.

astonerii on July 10, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Scrapping welfare and social security would create massive surpluses.

astonerii on July 10, 2013 at 8:44 AM

But how would the bipartisan Party-In-Government buy votes then?

Steve Eggleston on July 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I’m waiting for the CBO score of a strategic bombing of Detroit

blammm on July 10, 2013 at 12:25 PM

As I wrote elsewhere yesterday:

And I swear if I see another blog post about how the CBO says that late term abortions are economically beneficial to the nation, I’ll puke. The proponents of this approach ignore the reality that same argument could be made about various victim groups, old people, minority groups, etc. Do you recall that Obama’s public health consultant (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. – Rahm’s brother) proposed rationing healthcare to children under 15 and seniors after age 65 because it would be a net gain for the economy. Frankly, I don’t want to live in a society that stops just short of saying lampshades made of human skin are cost effective.

It’s not about the economy. It is about our national soul, stupid!

in_awe on July 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM