Feed on

How about lying looters? This is priceless:

the talking points released this morning by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) claim the bill both “IS FULLY PAID FOR” and “EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.” President Obama made the same assertion in an interview with Fox News yesterday, and Bret Baier called him on it (italics added):

Baier: The CBO has said specifically that the $500 billion that you say that you’re going to save from Medicare is not being spent in Medicare. That this bill spends it elsewhere outside of Medicare. So you can’t have both.

Obama: Right.

Baier: You either spend it on expenditures or you make Medicare more solvent. So which is it?

Obama: talk talk talk …

Baier: — the CBO or the actuary that you can’t have it both ways?

Obama: No —

Baier: That you can’t spend the money twice?

Obama: — no, what is absolutely true and what I do agree with is that you can’t say that you are saving on Medicare and then spend the money.

Look how long it takes for Obama to concede Baier’s indisputable point about double counting. He tries to divert the conversation with irrelevant comments about the prescription drug “donut hole” and the commission on entitlements. He tries to dodge the question by saying “nobody’s claiming that this piece of legislation is going to solve every problem.” Yes, and nobody’s claiming that anybody is claiming that. Finally, he admits that “you can’t say that you are saving on Medicare and then spend the money.” Yet that is exactly what Obama and his allies in Congress keep doing.

The CBO’s preliminary analysis of the bill is here (PDF).


2 Responses to “A Prime Example of What I So Disdain!”

  1. Harry says:

    Economic alchemy, and alchemic hyprocrisy.

    What one should also know is that the CBO is required by law to use (my explanation) straight-line analysis of the effects of tax and spending changes. Wintercow knows what I’m talking about, but for his students such analysis assumes no change in behavior of interested parties.

    It assumes: raise taxes by one percent, it will yield an equal gain across those who you choose to tax.

    This an absurd notion, nearly equivalent to since the earth looks flat in Rochester, Therefore it’s flat, and we will bet your future on it, forget Niagra Falls or whatever you have seen on the Science Channel.

    Nobody who uses economic theory believes this, but the CBO in its scoring is required to do so.

    The reason is that they have to measure tax decreases equally with spending decreases, leading to the insidious “paygo” and also to the latest tax on saving and investment, Harry Reed’s child: the (2.7?%?) tax on the folks (($250,000 filing jointly!) who, when they cross that threshold, will have to pay the tax on the $260,000th dollar.

    Yeah, but you are two married teachers in Pennsylvania, and only make a combined income of $180,000 a year, right, and are going to retire soon? Well, Harry Reed’s idea will reduce the value of everything in your state pension fund, as well as your IRA and everything you have managed to save. Your state may go bankrupt, unless they decide to raise taxes, but where can you flee once the state has abandoned you? And how will you survive the value-added tax that is sure to consume thirty percent of what you buy?

    If one has traveled in Europe, one realizes these are the prices we pay for less freedom.

    My friend and mentor John Owen used to refer people such as the one to whom you refer as Bullshit Artists, and I cannot think of anything better.

  2. Fake Forecasts, Misleading Statistics, Misguided Policies, Mass … says:

    […] A Prime Example of What I So Disdain! | The Unbroken Window […]

Leave a Reply