I've been documenting the various tricks Democrats have been
employing to argue that their health care legislation would cost
less than $900 billion over 10 years and not add to deficits.
Their tactics include promising cuts to government programs that
future lawmakers are unlikely
to actually enact and moving $247 billion of spending on
Medicare doctors' payments to a
separate bill while claiming that it has nothing to do with
health care (even the Washington Post editorialized that
this was "nonsensical").
But another way that Chairman Max Baucus was able to keep the
cost of the Senate Finance Committee legislation down (as
measured by the Congressional Budget Office) was just a simple
gimmick.
Given that the CBO only puts a price tag on the first 10 years of
a piece of legislation, Democrats realized that they could simply
delay the enactment of the major spending provisions of the bill
by four years, thus creating the illusion of a bill that costs
$829 billion over 10 years. But in actuality, the bill is
projected to cost just $14 billion in the first four years, and
$70 billion through its fifth year. You can see this in the below
table breaking down the CBO spending projections:
I demonstrate this graphically below. The red shaded area to the
left of the line represents all of the spending in the first half
of the 10 year period the CBO evaluated, and everything to the
right of the line represents spending in the second half of that
10 year period. About 98 percent of the spending comes in the
last six years, and 92 percent comes in final five year period.
Thus, the true 10-year cost of the Baucus bill is well above $1
trillion, and according to estimates cited by Republicans, it's
actually $1.8 trillion.
don't worry, your kids and grandkids will carry the brunt of the
burden.
Richard| 10.19.09 @ 3:04PM
The chart could have been better Philip. Actually you needed two
charts. One chart for the documented 829 and one chart for the
829 + 247 Billion doctors payments. Other than that, I found the
article useful.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.19.09 @ 3:05PM
Mr. Llein
Duh...our communists in power are liars. Please get over it and
move forward to firing them all.
Thank you
Hey Ken,
Speaking of liars... When's Bob going to drop by and
show us a graph "proving" this was all Reagan's fault?
Eric R| 10.19.09 @ 4:38PM
Why don't good-government types (or the loyal opposition) insist
on "present value" accounting for government programs?
i.e. in the private sector we compare proposals for future
streams of spending/income by estimating the total present value
of those streams. Takes all the gimmickry out of flim-flam
proposals that look too good to be true.
I wonder whether any of the "real" news organizations will raise
these questions...LOL. Of course not. They're shills for the
almighty God, Lord Big Government Socialism.
Tim| 10.19.09 @ 2:29PM
that's one hell of a hill to have to climb...
Pete| 10.19.09 @ 2:49PM
don't worry, your kids and grandkids will carry the brunt of the burden.
Richard| 10.19.09 @ 3:04PM
The chart could have been better Philip. Actually you needed two charts. One chart for the documented 829 and one chart for the 829 + 247 Billion doctors payments. Other than that, I found the article useful.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.19.09 @ 3:05PM
Mr. Llein
Duh...our communists in power are liars. Please get over it and move forward to firing them all.
Thank you
Si Vis Pacem| 10.19.09 @ 9:02PM
Hey Ken,
Speaking of liars... When's Bob going to drop by and show us a graph "proving" this was all Reagan's fault?
Eric R| 10.19.09 @ 4:38PM
Why don't good-government types (or the loyal opposition) insist on "present value" accounting for government programs?
i.e. in the private sector we compare proposals for future streams of spending/income by estimating the total present value of those streams. Takes all the gimmickry out of flim-flam proposals that look too good to be true.
Warrior| 10.19.09 @ 5:29PM
At least it's not a hockey stick.
Real American| 10.19.09 @ 9:00PM
I wonder whether any of the "real" news organizations will raise these questions...LOL. Of course not. They're shills for the almighty God, Lord Big Government Socialism.