They Sold us Obamacare with Lies. Now the Truth Demands that we Repeal Obamacare.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 21st, 2011

CBO Scores Obamacare under $1 Trillion.  Just as the Democrats Hoped/Needed.

Healthcare reform ain’t cheap.  And that’s always been the greatest obstacle to getting it.  Medicare and Medicaid are going bust.  Costs are going up faster than we can raise taxes to pay for them.  And healthcare reform was just going to be more of the same.  More costs.  More taxes.  And more budget problems.

The debate of Obamacare proceeded during the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  Not the best environment for debating the creation of the greatest entitlement program we’ve ever considered making into law.  But they did.  It wasn’t going to be an easy sell.  It all depended on cost.  If the first 10 years cost less than $1 trillion, there would be hope.  And, guess what?  They did (see CBO: Health-care reform bill cuts deficit by $1.3 trillion over 20 years, covers 95% by Ezra Klein posted 3/18/2010 on The Washington Post).

According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years — so, 2020 to 2029 — it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

How about that?  Less than $1 trillion.  With $60 billion to spare.  And it cut the deficit, too.  Who could ask for anything more?

How they got these numbers, and whether there are important qualifiers, will be easier to say once CBO releases its analysis. But the bottom line is that this is the exact sort of score that Democrats wanted, and is in fact considerably better than some had come to expect they would receive. Coverage is better than the Senate bill, which will reassure liberals, and deficit reduction is better than either bill, which will reassure conservatives.

When the nonpartisan CBO released its analysis, these were indeed the numbers.  Things were looking up for Obamacare.  But exactly how did they get those numbers?

Obamacare by the Numbers:  Lies, Deceit and Flimflammery.

Well, it would be awhile before anyone could answer that question.  At some 2,000 pages, the bill was complex to say the least.  So complex that those voting for it didn’t even take the time to read it.  Besides, there was no time to read it with the vote schedule to happen before the ink even had a chance to dry.  So they didn’t.  And voted.  Because as Nancy Pelosi said, they would have to pass it before learning what was in it.  And that’s exactly what they did.

Well, we now know why they rushed Obamacare into law.  Because anyone reading and understanding the details would have been furious.  To say the data the Democrats gave to the CBO were suspect would be a gross understatement.  When the CBO scored H.R. 2 (the repeal of Obamacare) it becomes clear how they got those rosy numbers (see Everything starts with repeal by Charles Krauthammer posted 1/21/2011 in The Washington Post).

“CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion.”

As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin pointed out when mining this remarkable nugget, this is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes.

The repeal of Obamacare will increase the deficit.  Because Obamacare included $770 billion in new taxes (i.e., revenue).  To pay for $540 billion in new spending.  High spending.  And even higher taxes.  Of course, at the time all we heard was deficit reduction.  Pretty sneaky of them.

Of course, the very numbers that yield this $230 billion “deficit reduction” are phony to begin with. The CBO is required to accept every assumption, promise (of future spending cuts, for example) and chronological gimmick that Congress gives it. All the CBO then does is perform the calculation and spit out the result.

Future spending cuts.  Like the gutting of Medicare.

In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates – government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans – doesn’t kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures – while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive – i.e., deficit-reducing – number. Surprise.

Interesting accounting practices.  The kind that sends people to prison in the private sector.  Overstating profits by not matching costs to revenue.  If they did the accounting along GAAP, there would be no deficit reduction.  Because Obamacare actually will increase the deficit.  They’re cooking the books.  To mislead CBO.  And the American people.

If you think that’s audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second – long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.

When you lie, lie big.  No one risks going to prison in the private sector for stealing pennies.  If you’re going to bilk the taxpayers, make it worth the price of getting caught.  There is even the theory that if the lie is big enough most people will believe it.  Because they just can’t imagine anyone making up such a big lie.

And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus. As former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta note, “Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as ‘offset’ to grease the way for another entitlement.” I would note additionally that only in Washington could such a neat little swindle be titled the “CLASS Act” (for the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act).

Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me.  At this point, it would be safe to assume that all their financial projections are dishonest.  Why?  Because liars lie.  If we catch you making one mistake you can claim an accounting oversight.  But we’re well past that now, aren’t we?  I think the term ‘habitual’ is more appropriate.

That a health-care reform law of such enormous size and consequence, revolutionizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy, could be sold on such flimflammery is astonishing, even by Washington standards. What should Republicans do?

Make the case. Explain the phony numbers, boring as the exercise may be. Better still, hold hearings and let the CBO director, whose integrity is beyond reproach, explain the numbers himself.

Yes.  It’ll be easy.  Just do what the Democrats wouldn’t do back in March of 2010.  Show the math.  Even the people who don’t like math will understand it.  I mean, it’s only arithmetic.  Numbers in columns.  Plussing them.  And minusing them.  Simple math.  Just show the people.  They’ll get it.

To be sure, the effect on the deficit is not the only criterion by which to judge Obamacare. But the tossing around of such clearly misleading bumper-sticker numbers calls into question the trustworthiness of other happy claims about Obamacare. Such as the repeated promise that everyone who likes his current health insurance will be able to keep it. Sure, but only if your employer continues to offer it. In fact, millions of workers will find themselves adrift because their employers will have every incentive to dump them onto the public rolls.

And let’s not forget about those death panels.  They were in Obamacare.  Then out.  Then they were in Medicare.  Then out.  Where they are nobody knows.  But you know they’re there.  Because the numbers are far worse than they let us believe.  And the only way you can cut costs when you’re in the business of providing health care is to not provide as much health care.  Especially the expensive kind.  The kind that Granny needs.

This does not absolve the Republicans from producing a health-care replacement. They will and should be judged by how well their alternative addresses the needs of the uninsured and the anxieties of the currently insured. But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.

Yes.  Repeal Obamacare.  Do it like removing a Band-Aid.  Quickly.  And in one stroke.

Figures don’t Lie.  But Liars Figure. 

Most legitimate polling shows the majority of people want to repeal Obamacare.  And for good reason.  They lied through their teeth to get this thing into law.  But they were even opposed to it before the vote.  There was fierce opposition at the town hall meetings.  And it took the bribing of Democrats to get the thing passed.  Most of who are out of a job now.  Because they acted against the will of their constituents.

Yet they still persist.  They keep lying.  They say that if we repeal Obamacare the economy will crash into recession.  And kill kids.  But the numbers don’t agree with this.  Neither does history.  For no one ever stimulated an economy with a massive tax increase.  And a lot of kids have survived without a national health care entitlement.  We haven’t had one all these years.  And we’ve had a lot of kids that grew into adults.  In fact, those lying to us now were all once kids.  They made it into adulthood without a national entitlement.  And others will, too.

Figures don’t lie.  But liars figure.  And they’re figuring like there is no tomorrow to keep this most unpopular law from being repealed.  Why?  Simple.  Because it’s one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  It’s not about health care.  It’s about expanding government.  And the liberal agenda.  To explode the size of the public sector.  Flood Washington in other people’s money.  So these liberals will never have to work a real job in their lifetime.

If you can think of a better idea, let me know.  But I’m sticking with this.  Because it’s always about the money.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Estate Taxes and Social Security – are the Dead People or Cash Piñatas?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 18th, 2010

The Lord Taketh Away.  And the Lord Giveth.

I sat in some construction meetings for a small church building a new nave.  I learned a few things about churches.  And construction.  First of all, church projects have a lot of alternates in their bid proposals.  Because they always want more than their budgets can pay for.  But they’re ever hopeful.  When they pass that basket around.  To add some of those alternates.  Even ask for donations during construction.  From the contractors building their new nave.  But the biggest thing I learned was the value of dead people.

This church had grandiose plans.  A pipe organ.  A light dimming system.  A sound system.  And some really nice (and expensive) chandeliers (they install some plain-Jane lights until they could afford the more spectacular lighting).  But, alas, they did not raise enough money to include all of these things.  And to make matters worse, they ran into some unexpected costs.  They had to make cuts.  Even some of the things that they had already approved.  The owner’s representative was not a happy camper.  He had to sit in a lot of meetings to reach a consensus on what to cut from the project.  But there was never any consensus.  Then, one day, he came to the construction meeting with a big smile on his face.

Someone had died.  And he was a parishioner.  A well-to-do parishioner.  The owner’s rep got a heads up on what the dead guy had bequeathed to the church.  And it was enough to not only keep the approved alternates.  But big enough to add a few other things.  And he smiled.

Death and Taxes – A Liberal’s Favorite Things

In all fairness to the church, they did a lot of charitable work in their community.  But there are other people who smile when old people die.  And they’re not helping the community as much as stuffing their pockets and the pockets of their friends.

Social Security is a great cash piñata for the government.  That’s why they are dead set against privatizing Social Security.  You see, it’s a numbers game.  Or racket.  Working people pay into a ‘retirement fund’ while they work.  Then when they retire, they get ‘benefit payments’.  And if you die the day after retiring, the government gets a big smile on their face.  Why?  Because they get to keep your ‘retirement fund’.  And that just wouldn’t happen if you had your retirement in a 401(k).

Private retirement investments (IRA, 401(k), insurance policy, etc.) are private property.  If you die before using those benefits, they go to your spouse, kids or other next of kin.  It’s your money.  And it stays in your family.  Well, some of it, at least.

When people use other investments other than the federal government, the government has other ways of getting your money when you die.  It’s called the estate tax.  The government sees the death tax as a statement of their generosity.  Instead of a 100% tax rate upon your death like with Social Security, it’s closer to 50% (depending on the current tax code).  Like George Harrison sang in Taxman, the government is basically telling us that we should just be thankful they’re not taking it all.

The Final Solution for Efficiency’s Sake

Liberal Democrats are obsessed with death.  To them it’s convenience and efficiency.  They like euthanasia.  They talk a lot about dignity at the end of life, but it’s also a great money saver.  As some sick and dying people can take a long time to die.  And Medicare and Medicaid pay for a lot them while they’re taking their time to die.  But euthanasia can change that.  And has.  In some of the more ‘bluer’ (i.e., liberal) states.

They like abortion, too.  They talk about it empowering women.  But is also a great money saver.  When unmarried teens get pregnant and they carry their baby to term, that baby will consume a lot of government benefits.  Of course, this is a double-edge sword.  The use of abortion (and birth control) has reduced the birthrate.  At a time the size of government has been expanding.  Which means there will be fewer taxpayers down the road to pay for that expanding government.

Of course, Obamacare brings it all home for the liberal Democrat.  The government will make healthcare a model of efficiency.  By deciding who should get treatment.  And who should get a pill to help them manage their pain.  Until they die.

Scary, isn’t it?  They deny it.  And they don’t use the word ‘death panels’ in the Obamacare legislation, but there are boards.  Who make healthcare decisions.  Based on cost.  And the only way to make healthcare more efficient is to spend less.  And you spend less when more sick and old people die.  And when it comes down to it, what is an old person?  Someone who is no longer a useful taxpayer.  But, instead, is a tax consumer.

And keeping them alive is just bad business when you’re in the business of life and death.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #28: “Politicians love failure because no one ever asked government to fix something that was working.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2010

GOVERNMENT FIXES PROBLEMS.  Or so they say.  And the people think.  When something isn’t right in the country, the people demand that government do something about it.  And politicians are more than happy to oblige.  It strokes their egos.  Increases their budgets.  Their staffs.  And they get to do what they like best.  Tell others what to do.  Well, that, and spend money.

Politicians are happiest when government grows.  Because when it does, there’s more stuff to do.  More people to manage.  Bigger offices to move into.  More people to hire.  And the more they hire, the more people are indebted to them.  Who love them.  Respect them.  Are in awe of them.  Which inflates their egos even more.  As if that was even possible.  And, of course, there’s more money to spend. 

As government grows, so does their job security.  I mean, there may come the day that the good people may not reelect them.  As devastating as that may be, they can be comforted in the fact that they will leave Washington far richer than they were upon entering Washington.  And there’ll always be a place for them in an ever expanding government.  A cabinet position.  An agency position.  Or, perhaps, they’ll be named a czar.  Of something.  In charge of a policy issue.  Away from the oversight powers of Congress.  Anything is possible.  As long as government grows.  And there is more money to spend.

And just why is that?  Why does government continue to grow?  Simple.  They don’t fix problems.  They’re always ‘fixing’ problems.  But they’re never fixed.  They’re always a work in progress.  Because a fixed problem doesn’t require their services any longer.

DON’T THINK SO?  Suppose the government gives you a federal job.  An important one.  You’re in charge of the Office of Getting People to Happily Accept the Banning of Smoking in Public Places.  They give you a big office.  A staff.  A budget.  And a title.  You feel pretty good.  Important.  You diligently go about your work.  You take polls.  You analyze data.  You place public service announcements.  You intensify your polling before and after local laws are implemented banning smoking in public places. 

You analyze your data.  You correlate satisfaction with dissatisfaction.  Pacification with irritability.  Your numbers look good.  As more and more localities ban smoking from most public spaces the more your numbers show that the satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratio is trending favorably.  The trending is flatter with pacification/irritability but the trending is still favorable.  You conclude that these new laws come in, on average, at 9.875.  And that’s very good on the scale you created to measure overall effectiveness and acceptance of new laws to influence social behavior.   You happily report your findings to your superior.

“What are you,” your superior asks, “stupid?  Trying to put yourself out of a job?  Are you trying to cut my budget?  Because that’s exactly what’s going to happen if you turn in a report like this.  Now here’s what you’re going to do.  You’re going to report that your findings indicate some improvements in some select demographics.  But overall there is still much work to do.  Then write up a proposal for additional work required and throw in a budget that increases your current budget by 12%.  For starters.  Then I’ll critique your findings and find your funding request insufficient because of a mistake you made in your analysis.  Have it on my desk by the end of the week.”

Sound ridiculous?  That’s probably because it is.  And probably all too true.  I mean, how many federal programs do politicians shut down because they were successful in achieving their objective?  I think few.  If any.  Because no one wants to put themselves out of a job.  Especially a federal job.  Because there’s no job like a federal job.  At least, not in the private sector.

IN THE PRIVATE sector, your work has to have value.  When people are voluntarily paying for goods or services, you can’t have fat payrolls and fat budgets to produce goods and services no one wants.  You can only do that when government pays.  And by government I mean you and me.  With our taxes.  Which we have little choice but to pay.  For we are forced to under penalty of law.  Which can be pretty persuasive in making you pay for stuff you don’t want.  For we wouldn’t normally give away our hard-earned pay for the ridiculous wastes of resources known as government work.  To make the lives of federal workers better than ours.  And speaking of federal workers, what’s that joke?  Question:  What is federal work?  Answer:  Work for the unemployable.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  For a lot of these people couldn’t make it in the private sector.  And if they had to, they would only do so with the utmost bitter resentment.  They’d resent the longer hours.  The huge cut in pay.  The huge cut in benefits.  And the accountability.

You see, in the private sector, failure has consequences.  People get fired.  If a business is losing money because of silly projects they’re pursuing, the board of directors will fire the corporate officers.  If it’s a small business, the owner may lose his or her life savings.  And their house (which is often mortgaged up to the hilt to support their business).  There will be change after failure.  And it will be painful to many.  Unfeeling.  Cold.  But necessary.  But it’s different in government. 

When politicians fail, they reward themselves.  When their policies fail, the politicians simply say they need more time to make those policies work.  And more money.  That’s always the answer.  And they get away with it.  More money.  Keep throwing money at the problem.  No matter what a train wreck their programs turn out to be.  Or what the unintended consequences are.

POLITICIANS LIKE TO tinker.  Often in things they shouldn’t.  Because when they do, bad things often happen.  Those unintended consequences.  For when it comes down to it, they’re not very smart.  They could have graduated from their Ivy League schools at the top of their class, but they often know squat about the things they’re meddling in.  Most of them are lawyers.  And what does a lawyer know about economics?  Foreign policy?  National security?  Bupkis.  But it never stops them. 

And it doesn’t even matter.  Because their motives were honorable.  They acted with the best of intentions.  At least, that’s what they say.  As do their supporters.  And when everything goes to hell in a handbasket, they don’t mind.  Just more problems for government to fix.  More programs.  More staff.  And more money to spend.

Of course, we ultimately pay the price for their actions.  Whether it’s recession, depression or a more dangerous world to live in.  Which is often the case.  More times than not.

EVER WONDER WHY everything is a crisis?  Because a crisis needs urgent action.  By politicians in Washington.  And that urgent action is typically vast new government programs with an exploding federal bureaucracy.  Along with explosive federal spending.  And because it’s a crisis, there’s no time to lose.  If we don’t take immediate action the consequences could be dire.  There’s no time for debate.  For opposition.  To read a bill.  No.  We have to act and we have to act NOW.  Before this crisis gets any worse.

And when things do get worse after we take all that urgent action, you know what they’ll say?  That they were wrong?  Yeah, right.  In some fantasy world maybe.  No.  Instead, they’ll say just imagine how bad things would have been if they didn’t act like they did.  That we should be thankful things are only as bad as they are, for they could have been a whole lot worse if government didn’t act.  Why, they’ll be patting themselves on the back.  While you suffer more.

Hard to fight that logic.  I mean, they can say anything.  If their action takes unemployment to record levels, they can say unemployment would have been twice as high if they didn’t do what they did.  Twice as high would be worse.  But how do they know it would have been twice as high?  How can they prove it?  Well, they don’t have to.  Because you can’t disprove it.  And those who gamble know that a tie goes to the house.  So they’re right.  Because you can’t prove otherwise.  So they act accordingly.  And their supporters go along.  And the answer to the new problems that are worse than the original problems?  You guessed it.  More of the same.  More government programs.  More government spending.  At least, that’s what the historical record shows.

POLITICIANS LOVE FAILURE.  They thrive on it.  It gives them life.  Success, on the other hand, destroys them.  Removes their raison d’être.  Their reason for being.  A prospering nation, after all, doesn’t need government to fix anything.  And that’s no good.  Especially if that’s the business you’re in.  Fixing things.  Fixers need to fix.  But it needs to remain a work in progress.  So there’s still fixing to do.  Always.  And forever.   

And they’ll never let a good crisis go to waste.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,