This is this morning in Washington on Capitol Hill. House budget committee hearing on the federal budget, the national debt outlook. During the Q&A, the chairman, Paul Ryan, Republican, Wisconsin, is talking to the Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf, and they had this exchange. Now, this is the chairman of the Congressional Budget Office, the director talking about Obama's proposed budget framework.

RYAN: We got your reanalysis of the president's budget. I won't go back into that, but the president gave a speech on April 13th where he outlined a new budget framework that claims four trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. Have you estimated the budget impact of this framework?

ELMENDORF: No, Mr. Chairman, we don't estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.

LOL! Empty suit

Barry Hussien gives great teleprompter!

That's okay...the non-political...excuse me while I just completely fall apart with thunderous laughter...









...okay...where was I...man, my sides hurt...oh yeah...the CBO...right, well this is the very same very informed band of idiots chock full o' Clout that swore up and down that ObamaCare was something that America could completely pay for!

"Another Runaway Entitlement Program
The centerpiece of the new legislation is a large-scale coverage expansion. The Medicaid program is expanded to cover all households with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and subsidized insurance is provided for families with incomes between 133 and 400 percent FPL. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that these two expansions will bring 34 million people onto the federal entitlement rolls by 2017.[1] Moreover, by 2019, CBO says the cost of these “coverage” provisions is likely to escalate very rapidly and in line with the rising costs of existing health entitlement programs, including Medicare.

Proponents claim that the tax hikes and spending reductions in the bill will be more than sufficient to pay for the added costs of another large expansion in federal spending. And, in fact, CBO’s cost estimate shows a net deficit reduction from the health-related provisions of the bill at $124 billion over the period 2010–2019.
But, for many reasons, the impact on future taxpayers is likely to be much more adverse than CBO’s estimates indicate."

And the hits keep on comin'...

"These survey results mean Obamacare will be vastly more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office claimed. The CBO's computer models calculated Obamacare's costs on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare's price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion. To put this in terms even an Obama White House staffer can understand, the McKinsey survey makes clear that Obamacare's cost is unsustainable and the program should be repealed."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/details-mckinsey-study-expose-obamacare-flimflam 

but just when you thought it couldn't get any better!

"CBO says it took into account Medicaid "glitch" in Obamacare estimates

Earlier today, I noted an Associated Press report about a "glitch" in the national health care law that would allow for 3 million couples who were early retirees earning up to $64,000 to qualify for Medicaid, because their Social Security benefits would no longer count as income. The Congressional Budget Office has informed the House Budget Committee that this was factored in to their cost estimates for the health care law.

Here's what the CBO told the House Budget Committee:

We have been asked by a number of people whether, in its estimate of Medicaid enrollment under PPACA, CBO took into account the change made by that law in the income definition used to determine eligibility for Medicaid. That income definition excludes the portion of Social Security income that is not taxable.

The short answer is “yes.” CBO took that new income definition into account in its estimate of Medicaid enrollment and costs. We have not separately estimated the number of early retirees who would be eligible under that income definition."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/cbo-says-it-took-account-medicaid-glitch-obamacare-estimates#ixzz1QCCsSRzW 


See the pattern yet? When the CBO is wrong they're right! They was just holding on to information...for a friend see? Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe you know another organization that does that...oh yeah...the Federal Reserve! Yeaaaa...can the real Slim Shady please stand up...please stand up...just so we can shoot off their f'n lyin' heads!

Dr Maddvibe....

Please stop making logical arguments. It makes it difficult for others to counter.

Thank you =d>

The CBO is in a tough position. They can only base their forecasts on the information given so you have to read the footnotes very carefully.

Everybody knew the deficit/debt neutral Obamacare was a fraud. Now that it is passed we will spend 50 years fixing it's shortcomings just like our other Federal entitlement programs. The most obvious fraud was that most of the increased costs were to be offset by Medicare savings to be passed in future legislation. Meanwhile the AMA was promised that this would never happen. That leaves a huge gap to be made up by taxpayer money and it will be.

I would be willing to guess that most of us in the corporate world never believed that only 7% of companies would drop their insurance. Now we have a survey that says 30% will drop and now we're another trillion dollars short. I suspect that number will creep much closer to 50% fairly rapidly as companies move to get out of the health insurance providing business.

Obamacare is set up to encourage companies to drop their insurance. Then we move on to stage 2.

They need something to review to review it. Ryan new that when he asked the question. BFD.

CBO report shows debt would be unsustainable even with Clinton-era tax revenue

By: Philip Klein | Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein | 06/23/11 2:58 PM
.

Earlier, Conn Carroll posted a chart from the Congressional Budget Office that clearly shows spending, not insufficient tax revenue, is the driver of our long-term debt problems. But using CBO data, we can go a bit further. It turns out that even if we brought tax revenues back to the historically high levels that existed at the end of the Clinton era, we'd still wind up with unsustainable deficits using the White House's own definition of "sustainable."

In 2000, the last full-year of President Clinton's administration, tax revenues were 20.6 percent of GDP, according to the CBO. (The White House Office of Management and Budget puts it slightly higher, at 20.9 percent, which places it in a tie with 1944 for the highest ever level in U.S. history). But the CBO's long-term fiscal outlook released yesterday predicts that by 2035, total spending will reach a stunning 33.9 percent of GDP if lawmakers pursue their predictable course. That means even if revenues returned to the coveted pre-Bush tax cut levels, there would be a 13 percent difference.

Yet President Obama's former OMB director Peter Orszag has written that, "a sustainable level is more like 3 percent (of GDP) or lower." So that would put the deficits, even with Clinton-era revenues, at more than four times their sustainable levels.

So let's be clear: when Democrats talk about revenues needing to be part of the solution, for them to really be part of the solution, taxes as a proportion of the economy would have to exceed record levels. And not just marginally, but by a substantial degree.



http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/cbo-report-shows-debt-would-be-unsustainable-even-clinton-era-tax?#ixzz1QE40ryGS 




Oh noes...not the mythical "surplus"...it's all gone! Oh wait...it never exisited! Even when the CBO is wrong...they'll say they were right. Ever wish their words held some REAL meaning. What if they really were accountable for their mistakes. I don't think they'd be so free and loose with their "projections".