..numbers again too, please??
Worsening Our Fiscal Nightmare - Sen. Jeff Sessions - National Review Online
Worsening Our Fiscal Nightmare - Sen. Jeff Sessions - National Review Online
What the heck! Can you run the Obamacare
- Thread starter Gilligan
- Start date
ImnoMensa
New Member
As far as spending is concerned if we had elected Rodney King President we couldn't have done any worse.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
You do remember this was supposed to save us money, and parts of it were going to be budget neutral.
Obama didn't lie because he had his fingers crossed when he said it, doesn't count!
You do remember this was supposed to save us money, and parts of it were going to be budget neutral.
The budget or Obamacare? The link I posted to was about the 'surpising revelation' that the WH's budget projections are wacked. Since we only have one CBO and they keep coming up with worse and worse projections as time goes by..never better (as total BS gets replaced by more realistic data)...I want to see the numbers run again for the Obamacare projections.
Tilted
..
I'm not sure where Senator Sessions is getting that $13 Trillion from (and I'd be curious to know what he means by it), but I think he actually understates the issue regarding the disparity between the CBO's projections and estimates and the White House's. The differences between them, and the respective stories they would tell, are striking.
The President's budget projects a total baseline deficit (i.e. what it would be without the changes being proposed) of $9.387 Trillion from (FY) 2012 thru 2021. It then estimates that the proposed changes would result in a total deficit of $7.205 Trillion over that time period. In other words, it asserts that the proposed changes would reduce the deficit by $2.182 Trillion over the next 10 years.
Let's compare that with the CBO's numbers. It updated its baseline projections for comparison with the President's new proposals. That revision reflected an improvement (i.e. a reduction in the total projected deficit for the next 10 years) of $234 Billion from the January projections. The CBO's new 10 year baseline deficit projection is $6.737 Trillion. Its estimate for the 10 year deficit accounting for the President's proposals is $9.470 Trillion. In other words, it asserts that the proposed changes would increase the deficit by $2.733 Trillion over the next 10 years.
So, while it is true that the CBO's numbers reflect a 10 year deficit that would be $2.265 Trillion larger than what the White House has estimated, those CBO's numbers actually point to a deficit effect (of the President's proposals) that is $4.915 Trillion more (i.e. worse) than what the White House has estimated.
To complete the story, the FY 2011 deficit numbers break out like this:
President's baseline projection: $1.597 Trillion
President's estimates w/ proposed changes: $1.645 Trillion
Effect of proposed changes: $48 Billion increase
CBO's baseline projection: $1.399 Trillion
CBO's estimates w/ proposed changes: $1.425 Trillion
Effect of proposed changes: $26 Billion increase
So, for 2011, the CBO thinks that the White House overestimated the deficit (accounting for the proposed changes) and the (detrimental) effect of the proposed changes.
To be clear though, the CBO estimates that the vast majority of the deficit increase that would result from the President's proposals represents reduced revenues (e.g. tax cuts) rather than increased spending - $2.331 Trillion of the $2.773 Trillion.
Tilted
..
The CBO actually did come up with better baseline budget projections (i.e. for the size of the deficit) this time around, that's part of why it thinks the effect of the President's proposed changes would be worse than the President's estimates indicate. It also, when reporting on the potential deficit effects of repealing the PPACA (and associated parts of the reconciliation bill), indicated that the deficit effect projections of the PPACA had improved (by about $20 Billion, IIRC). So, it does sometimes come up with better (i.e. more optimistic) projections and has, most recently, with regard to both of those issues.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
As long as the state by state monopolies remain, the costs will remain out of market forces of supply and demand.
As long as someone else is paying for it, be Uncle Sam or your employer, the costs, lacking supply and demand forces, will remain.
So, free market, please.
As long as someone else is paying for it, be Uncle Sam or your employer, the costs, lacking supply and demand forces, will remain.
So, free market, please.
Tilted
..
Gilligan, ask and ye shall receive: Some more CBO analysis of the PPACA (presented to a House subcommittee last Thursday).
It isn't a comprehensive update, as it doesn't provide new estimates for direct spending or revenue effects. But, it does reflect an $89 Billion increase in the estimated net cost of coverage provisions for the 2012-2021 period (from $1.042 Trillion to $1.131 Trillion). Assuming the same direct spending and revenue effects, that would reduce the deficit savings (of the PPACA and Reconciliation Act) over that period to about $121 Billion.
It isn't a comprehensive update, as it doesn't provide new estimates for direct spending or revenue effects. But, it does reflect an $89 Billion increase in the estimated net cost of coverage provisions for the 2012-2021 period (from $1.042 Trillion to $1.131 Trillion). Assuming the same direct spending and revenue effects, that would reduce the deficit savings (of the PPACA and Reconciliation Act) over that period to about $121 Billion.
Thanks!. I'll go through it..but does the repeal of the 1099 reporting and all the 'magic money' that crap was supposed to produce..has that 'windfall' been subtracted?
Tilted
..
Not in the new estimates included in the document I linked. Those estimates were produced before Congress voted to repeal those reporting requirements and, as I indicated, they didn't include an update of the revenue effects anyway.
That said, I don't think the fiscal effect of the new reporting requirements was estimated to be very large (relative to the size of the PPACA, that is - IIRC, it was something like $2 or $4 Billion a year).