Today the Republican Party voted on procedural motion to repeal health care reform even though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told them such a move would increase the deficit. According the CBO, the Republican actions will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the first two years, and by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. Republicans like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) have dismissed the CBO report as "fake numbers" in justifying their vote. However, in the video clip to the left Bachmann is caught using CBO numbers just two minutes after she tries to discredit the same organization.
The moment occurred in a debate between Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on Sean Hannity's show last night. When challenged on the deficit Weiner pointed out that Bachmann will soon be voting to increase the debt by $1.2 trillion with her health care reform vote. At the (8:00) mark in the video to the left, Bachmann calls those CBO numbers "fake", but then at the (8:57) mark produces a chart which purports to prove deficits increased under President Obama. When Weiner asks for the source behind the chart Bachmann is forced to admit that it comes from the same CBO she just slammed.
According to most analysts the CBO is correct in both cases. Deficits have greatly increased under President Obama. However, Democrats contend that many of the items responsible for that deficit (i.e. TARP, Medicare Part D, tax cuts) were passed under the Bush administration. Deficits are often a reflection of spending passed in the past, not current legislation.
As for the health care reform bill, estimates certainly do vary depending on the source. But everyone agrees that spending was projected to greatly increase without any changes. Republicans claim health care reform will increase the deficit and some progressives contend it may actually decrease the deficit more than the CBO projects. The CBO serves as a sort "referee" on the matter, and despite Bachmann's claims the CBO's analysis does seem to stand up under closer scrutiny. At the very least, Bachmann weakened her argument by trying to use the CBO just two minutes after trying to debunk it.
Comments
The Food Stamp Party is losing people as fast as a burger at MD's.
"(CNN) – The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats is at its lowest point in seven years, according to a new survey by Gallup - a warning sign for the president and his party as the next race for the White House gets set to begin.
According to the annual Gallup survey of party identification, 31 percent of Americans say they are Democrats – a number that is down five percentage points from 2008 and is the same as it was in 2003 – the year following impressive Republican gains in the House and Senate."
In that poll - what percentage identified themselves as Republicans even after impressive Republican gains in the House and Senate? Here's a hint. less than 31%.
lg_, most independents tend right.
Get used to being in the American minority in the Food Stamp Party whos base is illegal aliens, minorities, criminals and LGBT types.
I am actually quite accustomed to being in the minority and rarely insult the majority party. It is the Republicans who turned really nasty when they were in the minority. They never seemed to get used to it even though reasonable people know - if you don't like who's in office, they will eventually be gone. I worry about those with hair on fire mentalities when they are not in the majority. I believe that they rely on outside affirmation to build their self esteem - thus their complete failure to adapt to being in the minority. Rather than seeking to build themselves up with worthy endeavors, they seek to build themselves up by destroying others. So very sad.........
Weiner is as arrogant as they come.
Being as the CBO can be manipulated at will by the numbers given to them, she was well within her rights to use one set and reject another.
See the election of 11-2 for more info.
There is a critical distinction that a partisan hack like Weiner might not concede, but that one would expect to see in an observation such as this. There is an enormous difference between a CBO projection and a CBO report. The projection is based on assumptions generated by information provided from the sponsors of the legislation. It is a forward-looking estimate that may or may not hold up, but it is not the same as a report on actual numbers. It’s apples and oranges to compare the actual deficits tallied by the federal government over the past ten years, and reported by CBO, with CBO projections about a bill’s impact on federal spending over the next ten years.
While she may have been right, she was unable to offer this very reasonable argument to rebut Weiner's assertion. She was right but she had no idea why.
You on the other hand, had no trouble finding the error in logic.
Interesting.
This article is just completely silly.
The CBO is limited to only using the numbers that it is given by the person who is asking for the score in its projections. If Bachmann believes the all the information isn't used in a projection then she can certainly used one set of data against another.
Where are you folks getting this crap that the CBO can only use data from the sponsors of the legislation?
Have you even bothered to check this on the CBO website? It's completely untrue.
When undertaking a cost estimate, CBO analysts contact the staff of the committee of jurisdiction and, when applicable, the staffs of the
Member sponsoring the proposal and the Member requesting the estimate to gather background information and discuss the schedule for completing the estimate. Budget and mandate cost
estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation. CBO analysts consult with the staff of the committee of jurisdiction (for a reported bill) or the sponsoring Member (for an introduced bill or amendment) when questions of interpretation arise, *** but they draw their own conclusions on an impartial and objective basis. ***
CBO employs standard methods of economic analysis and closely follows professional developments in economics and related disciplines.
http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/policyforestimates.pdf
Damn I am high! hahaha anyway I apologize for my cocaine fueled rant again. the left likes to do this to people so I feel bad for being all high and writing nonsense again. I am really a conservative when I get high. I love drugs and have a drug problem.
What - you expect intelligent conversation from the party of "Stupid"?
I'm not saying there's much merit in the Democrats, but at least their target demographic has a three digit IQ..
I love how Hannity makes a big fuss over an Obama statement of five years ago in order to imply that Weiner is a hypocrite. Is he really that stupid? Does he really think WE are that stupid? And does anyone else think they inflate his hairstyle with a leaky bicycle pump every morning?
Why do you keep saying two minutes? You state clearly that it was fifty-seven seconds later. Just say a minute. Also, putting the mark times in parenthesis is unnecessary. They are required to define which mark you are talking about. For future reference, if you can't take what's in the parenthesis out of the sentence entirely and still have it make perfect sense, then they aren't supposed to be in parenthesis.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!