Governing is Harder than Lying
The Republican party won the “lie of the year” award for its claim that the Affordable Care Act represented a “government takeover of healthcare” – a pretty impressive achievement in an era of ubiquitous political slime! Until now, they could safety lie and oppose, offering no constructive suggestions whatsoever. But now they are in power, they are in a bit of a bind. They are making a priority out of repealing the Affordable Care Act. But they couldn’t be bothered with actually doing the hard work and figure out how to reform the broken system in a way that they think would work better. It’s pretty clear why – they have no answer, and never will. They face another problem. One of their new rules says that legislation must be paid for. So how will they compensate for the loss of $100 billion from the repeal of this Act? The answer – simply exempt the repeal bill from the rules. Read Ezra Klein rip apart Eric Cantor’s feeble attempts to argue his way out of this paper bag. I fear we are in for a depressing few years.
Comments are closed.
They are hardly in power. Remember the president? And the Senate?
Plus, Politifact is hardly non-partisan,though they did support the pro-life contention that Stupack did not prevent women from using their own money to buy abortion insurance (another good lie they could have cited). They might have more cred if they had voted “shovel ready” as the lie of the year!
The GOP Rules Package creates budget exemptions totaling almost $5 trillion dollars, including exemptions for the Health care reform law, designated emergencies and the continuation of operations related to ‘Global War on Terror’, and many tax provisions, including the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, as well as exemptions for extensions of tax cuts enacted in 2001 or 2003.
That being said, I’m having trouble finding Republicans on Capitol Hill who truly believe health care will ever be repealed.
If you fear we are in for a depressing few years, things must be getting better!
Maybe I should be optimistic. Boehner’s speech betrayed a humility that I did not expect, and I’m hoping we see far less context free nihilism. We can always hope…
Holy cow…this is not the Minion we know and love!
John Boehner is an honorable man, as is Eric Cantor. I don’t think the humility in the new Speaker’s remarks was all that surprising.
And I appreciate at least the silence from the Catholic Right wing when Boehner mentioned that while he and Nancy Pelosi have policy disagreements, they share the same deep and sincere Catholic faith. And I appreciate the Right wing for not making any uncivil comments when Whip Cantor expressed his policy disagreement but respect for those with pro-choice opinions as decent and moral people.
Blogging is harder than lying too.
Whatever about Boehner, I just heard Eric Cantor on NPR this morning simply lying through his teeth about healthcare. Cantor seems a real nasty piece of work.
So isd Klein saying that it will cost $100 billion if the ACA doesn’t go through? That doesn’t sound right. I thought it was established that the ACA will cost money, regardless if it is a good idea or not.
No, the ACA saves about $140 billion over 10 years, and far more after that. This is from the CBO. Of course, the Cantors of the world are doing their best to lie about that.
An alternate viewpoint:
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/256465/no-ezra-klein-obamacare-will-not-reduce-deficit
CBO director Douglas Elmendorf says “estimates of the effects of comprehensive reforms are clearly very uncertain, and the actual outcomes will surely differ from our estimates in one direction or another.”
Hmmmmmm.
Says Kevin Williamson at The Corner:
“It will not come as a shock to observers of federal activities ranging from the ethanol program to the Iraq war that — unthinkable as it may seem — a government program may under some circumstances exceed its budget. If Obamacare spends not a nickel more than the CBO estimates, and if Obamacare produces every dime of the revenue promised, then it will prove a deficit-reduction tool over the next decade, by definition: That’s $411 billion in spending and $525 billion in revenue.”
THIS IS AS BIG A SHAM AS SHOVEL READY!
Austin, can you give us a durable position of yours on the credibility of CBO scores? We have seen the right wing cite them when they wish and damn them when they wish that.
Sort of like your “facts” that are not based on any research.
Can i give you an example of government getting estimates wrong and overspending. Are you really serious? Is this news to you?
You guys should now better than to rely on the National Review for economics! My response to Williamson – is this the best you can do? Cost estimates are subject to large margins of errors. Well, yes! But is it realistic to a suggest that a plausible error band can transform a saving of $140 billion into negative terrirory? Hardly.
And the so-called “doc fix” was excluded because it has nothing to do with this reform, it is a holdover from one of the stupid Republican attempts to cut Medicare back in 1997 (before they became ardent defenders of this single-payer program) that involved a flawed formula.
As for Medicare cost growth, well yes, but our NRO friend neglects to mention that Medicare is still growing far more slowly than private sector costs, which are the real problem. And yes, while the ACA takes some steps foward on delivery system reforms, they are still baby steps. In other words, we still have a health cost problem, but it is now a predominantly private sector problem.
I find it charming, my friend, that you have such faith in government numbers! Do I think government is capable of miscalculating to such an extent. Yep, every day of the week.
I think I’m somewhat confused. How is the ACA going to save $140 billion a year? Is that just because the ACA includes tax increases that will more than offset the expected expendatures? Or is it more than that?
Most people seem to assume that the ACA involves an increase in expendatures, not a decrease. If the ACA involved less federal spending on health care, wouldn’t that imply that the government is doing less to assist its citizens in health care? How is it that the ACA represents an increase in assistance to those who need it, but a savings to the federal budget?
It increases gross expenditure by anout $900 billion, mostly on subsidies. But, on net, it saves about $140 billion. This is from a number of revenue and expenditure measures, that often flew below the radar – they are most technical, and our ADHD-prone media cannot handle complexity. As Peter Orszag of OMD said “the bill contains all the main reform ideas out there to reduce health care cost growth over time” – see here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/04/01/Following-DoctorOrders/
So far all I see is new rules, except when they don’t want to use them. Boehner and Cantor used to laud the CBO, but suddenly, it’s worthless. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that the CBO doesn’t back up their story line that AHCA saves money and repeal will cost money. All I see from the GOP is going from NO to UNDO…and return us to the wonderful state of 2008? Oh won’t that be grand?
When asked about the CBO’s estimate that a repeal of health care would cost about $240 million, Boehner is alleged to have said: “The CBO is entitled to their opinion.”
Opinion? This is the leadership we can expect from these honorable gentlemen of the Teahadist movement?
Do you think the CBO numbers are something other than an opinion? You mean like CBO-Magisterium?