Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Economy, Politics.
Aug 22nd, 2009 | 60 responses

Back when I was young, Kris Kristofferson warned us all of the dangers of the silver tongued devil… the person who would come off as a charming fellow and say things you want to hear, then turn around and do you wrong. If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the running series of comments from both President Obama and Congressional Democrats on matters of spending, the deficit and the national debt, you should be getting an old, familiar feeling. It was only six months ago to the day, on Feb. 22, when Barack Obama proclaimed that he was going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. And let’s be sure to recall that this was after TARP was already in play and Porkulous was under construction like a fully operational Death Star. The economy had begun to collapse the previous fall, so nobody could say it was coming as a surprise.

My, how things change in six months. (Hat tip: Hot Air)

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama’s opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

Politically, the deficit has been an albatross for Obama, a Democrat who is pushing forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare industry — an initiative that could cost up to $1 trillion over 10 years — and other promises, including reforming education and how the country handles energy.

You’ll keep hearing more and more claims about how the Democrats’ proposed health care legislation will actually wind up saving money through the miracles of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. (Oh yes, and eliminating the evil insurance companies.) But the CBO keeps on shooting those ideas down, saying that the Dem plan will not result in any savings and putting the price tag at close to one trillion. Not to mention that some analysts are convinced that the CBO is using an outdated model and the real cost of ObamaCare will come in at closer to two trillion.

And yet some supporters still protest loudly here, saying, “Oh, Jazz. Don’t you call us tax and spend Democrats. That’s an old myth and you can’t prove it.”

You’re right about one thing. So far all we’re really seeing is the spend side of that characterization, aside from some early hits on tobacco, alcohol and “luxury” items. The real taxes haven’t started yet. But don’t worry … you can trust Congress. They wouldn’t lie to you, would they? Hisssssssssssssssssssssss.

60 Responses to “Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs”

1. Pug says:

   August 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm

   It's no surprise. What happened under Reagan, revenues going up but the Demmies in Congress spending $1.43 or something like that?

   Congress actually approved less spending than Reagan proposed. Reagan slashed taxes and sharply increased spending, mostly on the military. He operated under tooth fairy economics. Still, these conservatives will take no responsibility for any of the national debt. It was all somebody else's fault.

   Bush left a $1.2 trillion deficit, a crashing economy teetering on the brink of depression and two wars in progress. NIce job. HIs tax cuts also wiped out the budget surpluses left to him by Clinton and helped create huge deficits. Nice job.

   Now all the folks who voted for Bush twice are just horrified at deficit spending and the guy who trounced them, Obama, is to blame for all of it. Even as Wall Street, which is based on expectations of the future, soars by 50% and the economic news continues to improve they stand around screaming about how terrible everything is and how great the Republicans were. We've seen what happens when your guy wins. You should apologize and slink away in shame.
2. Leonidas says:

   August 22, 2009 at 5:35 pm

   Both Bush and Obama have been grossly irresponsible in the spending category. Watching people point fingers back and forth on this and blaming only one side is comical. Bush was an idiot for spending like this, Obama is now a bigger idiot for spending even more, but they are both still idiots.
3. foxwood says:

   August 22, 2009 at 6:37 pm

   Do you believe the Constitution is the rule of law? Do you believe in the original intent of our founding fathers? Do you want to reform Congress? If your answer is yes, we have to work together to make this happen.

   http://animal-farm.us/change/constitution-proje…
4. Jim_Satterfield says:

   August 22, 2009 at 8:50 pm

   Jazz has been defended by many as not being a doctrinaire conservative. However, on this subject he has shown over and over again that this is precisely what he is. His deep hatred of the current administration and Democrats in general is on full display. He says that given the economy this shouldn't have been a surprise. Really? Economic statistics are always being revised. Projections are too. In the Reuters article he links to there is this passage:
   

   “The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year,” said the administration official, who is familiar with the budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

   “Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out.”

   The White House budget office will also lower its deficit forecast for this fiscal year, which ends September 30, to $1.58 trillion from $1.84 trillion next week after removing $250 billion set aside for bank bailouts.

   Oooh, how evil. Speaking of evil, Jazz does love to make fun of anyone who criticizes those corporate saints, the American health insurance companies. Somehow he never addresses what makes so many people resentful and mistrustful of them. Do I need to write out the list? I think everyone but Jazz knows the reasons quite well. As far as his citation of Elmendorf's testimony to Congress is concerned, not everyone sees things the same way Elmendorf's testimony seemed to go. Disagreements can be found here, at the OMB (Which is currently headed by a former head of the CBO.) and in this column in Roll Call. And then there is what Elmendorf himself wrote later in the Director's Blog. Here's a significant admission (emphasis mine):
   

   CBO does not analyze national health expenditures (NHE) as closely as we analyze the federal budget (although we are working to enhance our capabilities in this area). Accordingly, we cannot provide precise quantitative estimates of the effect of health reform proposals on NHE even within the first 10 years. However, we will try to offer a qualitative indication of whether proposals would be more likely to raise or lower NHE during the next couple of decades. Expanding insurance coverage would raise NHE, because insured people generally receive more medical care than do uninsured people (see CBO’s Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, December 2008, pages 71-76). Yet, the increase in NHE would be much smaller than the increase in federal spending because some of that additional spending represents a shift in costs from other payers to the government (for example, new subsidies for people who would have purchased insurance anyway). At the same time, changes in Medicare or Medicaid that reduce federal spending and do not merely shift health costs to other payers would generally reduce NHE. For specific pieces of legislation, we will try our best to provide a very approximate sense of balance between these two opposing forces.

   In sum, as health reform legislation is considered by the Congress, CBO will endeavor to offer a qualitative indication of whether certain legislation would be more likely to increase or decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care, the federal budget deficit, and national health expenditures in the decade beyond the 10-year budget window. Whether these effects would persist in more-distant decades is not clear, and that uncertainty is an inherent feature of policy changes that could have substantial effects on such a large and growing share of the U.S. economy.

   It seems that much as climate change deniers do, some on the right insist on using uncertain estimates of things to attempt to prove their points and completely ignore any changes or follow ups in the the interim that either disprove their claims or at least weaken them in other areas, like in health care.
5. Jcavhs says:

   August 22, 2009 at 9:17 pm

   Because when dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and two foreign wars he really should be able to do EVERYTHING he promised in under 8 months.
6. Leonidas says:

   August 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm

   @ Jim Satterfield,

   When I see a moderate post from you I'll consider taking any labels you try to give others some credence, thus far I haven't.
7. Rudi says:

   August 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm

   @obarmadopeandstrange
   Try using only capitals on your next rant. Loved the non use of punctuation…
   ;-P
8. Twitter Trackbacks for Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs | The Moderate Voice [themoderatevoice.com] on Topsy.com says:

   August 23, 2009 at 8:08 pm

   [...] Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs | The Moderate Voice themoderatevoice.com/44022/those-forked-tongue-democrats-long-term-costs – view page – cached Back when I was young, Kris Kristofferson warned us all of the dangers of the silver tongued devil… the person who would come off as a charming fellow and say — From the page [...]
9. modernpatriot says:

   August 23, 2009 at 10:00 pm

   Leonidas

   I agree, all the politicians suck. Don't any of you people realize this is exactly what both sides want. My sides got one bigger than yours. And while we are doing all this fighting over the past they slip little bills through and half of us, or more don't even know about them. No matter what side you are on saying the other side in the past did this or that is no defense, period. If you accidentally backed out of your driveway and ran over my child and killed him then I guess it would be OK for me to wait for your kid and run him over. Thats what you all are saying when you defend which idiot was/is the biggest one. If you don't start having real, civil, thoughtful conversations with each other, (without politicians) we are all going to wake up in a place that none of us may like a whole lot. Think about it!! Find out what your neighbors think. No, not them, the neighbors from that other party.
10. Fancy This… Geraldo Runs Into Prof. Henry Gates at Martha’s Vineyard (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone says:

    August 24, 2009 at 6:09 am

    [...] That Be: Dickweed Summit: Geraldo Runs Into Henry Gates On Martha’s Vineyard The Moderate Voice: Those Fork Tongued Democrats: Long Term Costs Frugal Café Blog Zone: Our Deficit Grows and Obama Goes… On Vacation to Uber-Pricey [...]