First Set of CBO Numbers In (UPDATED)
Mar 18th, 2010 | 61 responses
Politico has just announced that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has released the first set of Congressional Budget Office numbers to reporters this morning.
According to Politico:
The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.
More details here
UPDATE:
According to The New Republic, In “Dems Get the CBO Score they Want”:
Democrats in the administration and Congress have agreed on a set of amendments to the Senate health care bill. And, according to House leadership, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is certifying that the amendments will reduce the deficit. That should fulfill the parliamentary requirements of the reconciliation process, satisfy the demands of many nervous Democrats, and clear the way for the House to vote on health care reform.
Overall, according to leadership aides, the underlying Senate health care bill plus the amendments will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years. Democrats are calling it the “biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years”–that is, since the 1993 Clinton budget.
This news should ease the anxiety of reform critics, both in Congress and beyond, who worry that health care reform will bankrupt the government or the country. CBO projections are not an exact science, but they’re as reliable as anything we have. If anything, their projections err on the side of excessive caution.
UPDATE II:
A copy of the preliminary CBO budget report is now available here.
UPDATE III
This just in by Ezra Klein:
The question people generally ask about the final health-care reform vote is, “Won’t it be politically difficult for many House Democrats to vote yes?” But with the release of the CBO report (pdf), I’d flip that question a bit: Won’t it be substantively difficult for many House Democrats to vote no?
::
::
People pay a lot of attention to the difficult politics of health-care reform, but at the end of the day, the task of writing the policy will be seen as the harder, and more consequential, element of this effort. But it worked. Democrats got the score they needed, and now they can go to their liberals and say that this is closer to universality than we’ve ever been, and they can go to their conservatives and say this does more for deficit reduction than has ever been done, and both things will be true.
If this bill does pass on Sunday, that, and not deals or polls or rides on Air Force One, will be why
To read everything in between, click here.
61 Responses to “First Set of CBO Numbers In (UPDATED)”
Flying is easy: you throw yourself at the ground and miss.
I noticed that a) there's no link the real report, which in the past has had language that pointed out the deceptions, and b) “Here are the details, according to House Democrats:” (emphasis mine). A group that doesn't exactly have a reputation for honesty.
I'll wait for the real report.
You are welcome to quote your sources, Prof
We'll post a link to the “real report” as soon as it is available, Prof.
I'm with the Prof here. So far all we have is the spin and not the numbers.
The big question – will the usual *flaming, lobotomized, spineless NIMRODS* come up with an excuse to roll up in their comfort blankets and decide they're not comfortable with voting?
“I f we wait a little more, maybe we can get more savings! After all, I'm sure the millions of uninsured can wait a little longer so that we can eke out a few billion (while the system continues causing more costs to society unabated of course)!”
Never underestimate the utter lack of dignity, honor, perspective and fortitude of congressmen.
Flying is easy: you throw yourself at the ground and miss.
LOL!
Wouldn't it be great if someone at CBO with a sense of humor would, prior to releasing the real document, put out a short statement that “The answer is 42.”
The Democrats in Washington have been the classic case of Lawn Dart Airlines this past year.
“according to House Democrats”
DQ
So, let me get this straight. Borrowing over $900B reduces our deficit by $130B??
Only in Washington could such statements be made by adults without giggling, or going to jail.
It's not “borrowing” if it's paid for. I realize you believe it's not paid for; I'm just sayin'.
And those that questioned the spin appear to be correct in their concerns:
Well, they don't bother to read their legislation, so why should the Dems wait for an actual cost estimate before claiming it supports their typically-unread legislation? And after all, they are voing to try to “vote” for this legislation without really voting for it, so who cares? All that matters to their electorate is that everyone Feel Good in the end, anyway. (Why bother with any more elections, incidentally. The Dems already know everything beforehand.)
“Borrowing over $900B reduces our deficit by $130B?”
Don't forget the largely imaginary and exaggerated presumed cost savings, rosy growth scarios, all that.
I guess the CBO deemed that the analysis is done.
Imagine if we could all get and 'pay for' things in a similar manner.
I think I'll go take occupancy of a million dollar home. When someone tries to evict me I'll say it's my house. When they ask how I paid for it, with a mortgage? I'll say no, I did not borrow the money to pay for it. When asked, then how am I paying for it? I'll respond that I plan to pay for it in the future because I know that my employer is going to give me a huge raise.
Remember the title “FirstCBO Numbers Are In”
More to come—could help the Democrats, or not
“I guess the CBO deemed that the analysis is done.”
[salute]
I wonder if that's a lesson learned for future Democratic federal budgets.
It doesn't raise anyone's taxes is what she's saying.
Kathy,
It really isn't paid for. Here's what it does.
The primary sources of funding in the 10 year window are reductions in Medicare spending and increases in the Medicare tax rate for some. The Cadillac tax, because it's phased in so late, does very little on the revenue side. Let's also recognize that we're doing the 10 for 6 switcheroo to get the “deficit reduction” in the 10-year window.
So here we have Medicare that has a statutory inbalance in funding of about $35 trillion and the argument is that we paid for the entitlement for money that would reduce that $35 trillion by some amount (let's call it $800 billion).
The logic here is tortured. HCR takes the easiest ways to improve Medicare finances and, instead of improving Medicare finances, spends the money on something else. Is the something else paid for. Sure in the sense that Medicare goes bankrupt faster than it could have without the new program, I guess it is.
I'm not sure what your point is here, Christine. If you're trying to say that a piece of legislation is not paid for because its provisions are just assumptions that might not come true, then no legislation can ever be passed. I mean, unless your preference is to go the George W. Bush route and just pass legislation without any attempt to fund it or say where the money is coming from.
she means it is only robbing Peter (Medicare) to pay Paul (HCR). The money used to “pay” for HCR comes out of the money needed to fund Medicare, so we have to borrow the same amount anyway.
It like paying for your Visa card bill by using your American Express. You didn't really reduce your debt at all.
So I'll ask you the same question I just asked Christine. If the CBO score and the mechanisms in the bill for paying for itself are bogus, then is there any sense in which any legislation pays for itself? It's really weird to me that the Democrats are being skewered for actually making the attempt to be fiscally responsible by providing methods for the bill to be paid for and then by submitting the legislation to the CBO for scoring. I mean, the previous administration never did that. Former Pres. Bush never bothered with figuring out how to pay for a bill, even if the assumptions were not perfect. Former Pres. Bush never sent anything to the CBO to make sure it didn't increase the deficit. He just signed into law whatever legislation he wanted, and whatever it cost was what it cost.
Can you explain to me why I'm mistaken in concluding that this method is the one Republicans and conservatives would prefer? Because, truly, I don't get it.
If you're trying to say that a piece of legislation is not paid for because its provisions are just assumptions that might not come true, then no legislation can ever be passed
Not exactly. I'm saying that we shouldn't consider a piece of legislation paid for when it's provisions are wild assumptions that are very unlikely to not come true based on even a casual knowledge of past events when similar provisions were claimed.
It doesn't raise anyone's taxes is what she's saying.
??
Actually, my understanding is that the “money needed to fund Medicare” to which you refer is actually money saved by cutting waste in Medicare, and not actually money that's needed to fund the program.
Prof:
A copy of the preliminaryCBO budget report is now available here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20…
I'm saying that we shouldn't consider a piece of legislation paid for when it's provisions are wild assumptions that are very unlikely to not come true based on even a casual knowledge of past events when similar provisions were claimed.
Okay, but you have not provided any evidence that this assertion is actually true. Just your assertion is not enough.
Also, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it IS true, then under what circumstances would any assumptions in any bill be credible? And how could any administration pass any legislation that paid for itself without making assumptions — given that the physical realities of the space-time continuum would always prevent any administration from the ability to be certain those assumptions would bear out?
Here's the CBO report PDF
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr487…
“I think I'll go take occupancy of a million dollar home. When someone tries to evict me I'll say it's my house.”
Remind the critics that you have a “right” to a house like that.
Medicare spends X and takes in Y and over time Y is less than X. Waste is Z.
Today, Medicare spends X and takes in Y and that's a problem.
If the waste were saved Medicare spends X-Z and still takes in Y. Medicare is now better off.
If we spend Z on another program. We still spend X instead of X-Z and we are all worse off. The money can't be in both places at once. We will borrow the exact same amount of money (the different between Y and X in both the first and the third case. In the second, we only need to borrow the difference between X-Z and Y and if Z>0, we're borrowing less money.
Interesting that it's still not complete. Wonder how hard their arms got twisted to release it now.
Well, since none of us yet know exactly what they're scoring, it's hard to give specifics on the current situation. But, one example is the 'doc fix' thing- and again, I don't know how this final bill is going to handle that- where the scoring is based on doctors in future years getting a big cut in reimbursements because that's what the current law says will happen. Yet every year Congress votes to override this- so really the scoring is bogus, the cuts never actually happen.
There's also been a situation with taxes that are supposed to happen way down the line- like the Cadillac tax kicking in long after this Congress is gone. Since it's unpopular with unions, the current Dems don't want to be on record for having established this tax- and in later years when the time comes, it may very well be repealed and that revenue won't be there.
what circumstances would any assumptions in any bill be credible
I'd say the circumstances have to involve the current legislators taking responsiblity for the parts of the bill that result in cost cuts or tax hikes. It's still true that some of that can get repealed later, but then the responsibility would be on those legislators and the ones who passed the original legislation can credibly say that they passed a bill that was paid for.
“Remind the critics that you have a “right” to a house like that.”
After all, President Bush told me so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
“designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans. You don't have to have a lousy home for first time home buyers. If you put your mind to it the first time home buyer, the low income home buyer can have just as nice a home as anybody else.”
“After all, President Bush told me so”
Nothing wrongful like the libs forcing bad changes in lending laws since the late 1970s, G.D..
Yes, that is an excellent example of why such things can't be claimed as 'rights', and we know how that ended, don't we? Do you really want to go there with healthcare being a 'right'?
At least nobody is so rash these days here as to print and wave the following in front of others' faces, as if it has any kind of authority or is some legal or magic talisman. (That's what squatters should keep with them!)
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I just wish I knew what the UN thought the corresponding duty was…or perhaps they missed that Philosophy lecture.
“Do you really want to go there with healthcare being a 'right'?”
I've made my view of this abundantly clear. First, a successful tribe cares for its members; they are important to the tribe. Second, by letting insurance companies ditch high-risk customers, we drive them to the ER, which costs all of us more. Third, having a system in which millions have no access because of unaffordability, pre-existing conditions or a bad cholesterol level, also drives them to the most expensive care, which costs all of us more. And fourth, a system that bankrupts productive members of society and takes away everything they have worked for, cripples the middle class, which is the single most important driver of our “tribe's” survival and success.
I think that was a yes.
My question was rhetorical, because I was wondering why you chose to highlight an example of a president asserting housing as a 'right', which led to a meltdown of our economy, when that would lead most of us to question how we can make healthcare a right.
I know that those who assert this will sneer that I am considering healthcare as a commodity. Well, yes, because that is the reality. Healthcare exists because of the labor of others, and it is a fixed resource, not an inexhaustible one. So, if you're going to declare healthcare to be a right for all, you have to explain how in the world we can distribute this resource evenly to all.
And how much healthcare do we each have a right to?
“the corresponding duty”
Complete disarmament and submission to authority, and of course substantial taxation, is de rigeur.
[wink]
On a more local and more serious note:
For health care, the duty lies on doctors, as the providers of interest here. They must provide. That is assumed and not part of the debate currently, which is remarkable. With refusal to accept Medicare or Medicaid, most understand it's because of underpayment. (Few are so weird or daring as to deny the refusals are happening and constitute a problem that could become worse later until the “private option” alternative is removed as part of the solution to this problem.) Conyers and other “single-payer” activists who have thought about this already typically don't want any (private) duplication of any publically-paid-for (controlled) procedures or services. No private option!
In the longer term, cost control is what may lead us from a Medicare for All system to a VA system (reducing the private sector even more).
Most of the world has solved the problem of distributing the resource, through single payer systems. Eventually we will too, but the public first has to see the collapse of the unsustainable private insurance mediated system. And health care is not well served by the “commodity” model, nor by “free market.” That's because the “consumer” can't make an informed decision (as with buying a car or TV) without the advice of someone with a profit motive. They can't really shop around or negotiate either, because they are in medical need and not in a position to haggle.
There is no question that cost is a big problem for all health care systems. But we can't even have a rational discussion about real cost savings because of the hyperpartisan nature of the debate (“death panels!”). Eventually, we need to determine what is a baseline level of health care that we can afford, and provide that to all at the minimal cost, which means stripping out ALL wasteful parts, including new insurance product development, sales, marketing and underwriting, lobbying expense, excess executive compensation, bonuses for preventing “medical loss” by denying legitimate claims, and profit. Beyond this baseline level, which I'd be accused of being in a death panel if I described, we can allow those with more money to buy more care than we as a nation we can afford. We're not going to cover cosmetic surgery except as needed for post-accident reconstruction, and we probably can't cover organ transplants for 80 year olds. Those would be available through supplemental insurance or out of pocket.
There are some very tough decisions ahead on what we as a nation can afford to cover, but the low hanging fruit in savings are the things that contribute nothing to actual medical care.
Let's start with the SuperBowl add for the Census. I mean after all, only private companies spend money on those sorts of things.
OK I'm dense. What are the changes in Education and the Post Office the CBO is talking about in their report?
The Education part is likely the student loan takeover that's included in the sidecar. CBO projects this to save money in the budget window but that's just because Federal accounting doesn't require reserves to be offset against loans when the loans are originated. It's funny math but part of what funds the surpluses in the sidecar.
Not sure on the post office but maybe they are putting the operating savings in taking Saturday delivery in as well.
The more people who mail back their census forms, the less it costs us. That's not advocacy advertising, it's an attempt to streamline the process by requiring fewer federal employees (census takers) to canvass neighborhoods to get answers that should just be mailed in. I don't think your example does what you think it does.
And the reason to spend 2.5 million to put an add on the Superbowl. I bet there's a more effective media plan out there somewhere…but the whole thing is off topic.
Government fortunately never wastes money because they need to be efficient because…why was that again? Oh yeah because they aren't private companies that actually need to make a profit.
And health care is not well served by the “commodity” model, nor by “free market.”
But it's a commodity whether we want it to be or not. The only question is what system we choose to distribute it- either a govt. controlled system or a free market or some hybrid of the two.
That's because the “consumer” can't make an informed decision (as with buying a car or TV) without the advice of someone with a profit motive. They can't really shop around or negotiate either, because they are in medical need and not in a position to haggle
I think there's some truth to that but since there are various things we've done to make it less possible for informed decisions than it has to be, we really don't know if the problem could be ameliorated if we reverse some of those things to increase competition in the insurance market and improve pricing transparency.
I don't actually disagree with you philosophically about the 'hard choices', it's just that I don't think that it's good policy to simultaneously tell people that they can 'keep what they have' and that we're somehow also going to increase what other people have at taxpayer expense, without raising anyone's taxes. And I brought it up in the context of your comment about Bush's 'ownership society' policies regarding housing because that was a similar attempt to convince people that legislative sleight of hand could accomplish all of this.
Thanks, Steve. So they're including those savings in figuring the effect on the deficit of HCR? Seems odd.
This just in by Ezra Klein:
To read everything in between, go to:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/201…