Newt: My $1.5 Trillion Claim Comes From AP Report;
In case you want more evidence that AP's curious characterization of the cost of health care legislation is becoming a GOP talking point, you need look no further than Newt himself, who admits as much.
Here's how he defends himself.
"CBO score of $1 trillion does not include medicare and medicaid components which democratic leaders have not yet had scored."
Ummmm...ok. But here's what the CBO itself has to say about that: "The analysis issued today does not take into account other parts of the proposal that would raise taxes or reduce other spending (particularly in Medicare) in an effort to offset the federal costs of the coverage provisions."
Funny that. Newt's right that the CBO didn't score the bill. But the sections they haven't scored will actually decrease the overall cost of the bill. In fact, if Democratic legislators get their way, it'll probably cut the price in half. That's $500 billion less than $1 trillion. Not $500 billion more. Assuming this is an example of innumeracy and not mendacity (Newt would never lie!) it says a lot about Republicans that this is the figure they hold forth as their "big ideas" guy.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I'd like to see an overall cost total and quick before this stupid Repub meme sticks. Obama said we can save $950 billion out of Medicare/Medicaid with cost efficiencies correct? That's where the trillion dollar goal came from in the first place isn't it? We'll get another half trillion from raising taxes on those making over $350,000. Where does the public option savings of $150 billion come in? Is it under the above $950 billion? Separate? Please get on this guys so we have real benchmarks to counter Republican slime.
July 16, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
1 trillion or 1.5... So, how many trillions are we at now for the "war on terror"???????????
July 16, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Newt said it, it must be foolish!
July 16, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can heard Newt now, repeating his mantra:
"Higher taxes and more government"
Which he will repeat as nauseum. It's his response to everything.
July 16, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can save a 3rd by ringing that shit out of Private Insurance Schumer is only trying to ring out 100 billion out of them. That better be 100 billion A YEAR.
July 16, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newt's not their "big ideas" guy; he's their "big stick" guy.
As far as "mendacity" goes...well, Newtie-Patootie is a lost cause.
July 16, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Big Ego" is more like it. Remember, this is the paragon of emotional intelligence who threw an industrial strength hissy fit when Bubba made him sit on the back of Air Force One. Boo hoo. How old are you again, Noot?
July 16, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical conservative stance:
"I never said it was valid, I'm just passing it along."
July 16, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
They got Harry Smith to say $1.5 trillion this morning on the CBS Early Show.
Don't these people ever do their homework? Or, do they just read it as it comes hot off the fax machine from the RNC?
July 16, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A blog challenged my tweet".
It's a different World.
July 16, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brought to you by Associated Watercarriers
July 16, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shades of leaking the WMD story to stenographer Judy Miller and then citing the New York Times as a source. Cons believe the "librul media" are completely untrustworthy, but somehow they can still be cited as an authoritative source when they're parroting wingnut talking points.
July 16, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"CBO score of $1 trillion does not include medicare and medicaid components which democratic leaders have not yet had scored."
But wait. If we HAVE medicare and medicaid, those an old programs, so if we are doing the math here for new costs, why are we including the old costs we already have? They're not new.
I know. NEW math! I hate it too.
July 16, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf
"Budgetary Impact of Insurance Coverage Provisions. On a preliminary basis, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the proposal’s provisions affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $1,042 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019. That estimate primarily reflects $438 billion in additional federal outlays for Medicaid and $773 billion in federal subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges. Not all enrollees in the exchanges would receive subsidies, but the average subsidy among those who would be subsidized is projected to rise from roughly $4,800 in 2015 to roughly $6,000 in 2019. The other main element of the proposal that would increase federal deficits is the tax credit for small employers who offer health insurance, which is estimated to reduce revenues by $53 billion over 10 years.
Those costs would be partly offset by receipts or savings from three sources:
payments of play-or-pay fees by employers that do not make a qualifying offer of health insurance to their workers, which would reduce projected deficits by $163 billion over 10 years; payments to the exchanges by employers who do make qualifying offers but whose workers end up receiving coverage via the exchanges nevertheless, which would total $45 billion over 10 years; and penalty payments by uninsured individuals, which would amount to $29 billion in the 2010–2019 period."
$1211 billion in outlays ($438 bn plus $773 bn) minus $163 billion in employer fees equals $1048 billion, leaving $6 billion somewhere. Per this paragraph there would be another $74 billion in payments and penalties. Meaning that even before we talk surcharges on the wealthy we may have a tab under $1 trillion
But the point is that in this day and age you really should not be relying on the numbers of reporters who MIGHT be well-intentioned but who probably couldn't make change without the help of one of those MacDonalds cash registers with pictures rather than numbers. Bookmark the site and forget you ever heard the name 'Ron Fournier'.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/past90days.cfm
July 17, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink