( – promoted by buhdydharma )
Uh-Oh! Did someone just let the cat out of bag?
Democrats See GOP Hypocrisy in Health Care Debate
Citing 2003 Medicare vote, Democrats see GOP hypocrites in debate over health care spending
Charles Babington, AP Writer
Dec 25, 2009
[…] when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.
With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.
Six years ago, “it was standard practice not to pay for things,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Watch out Orrin, speaking the blunt truth, is NOT a GOP strong suit,
best to stick to the Lock-step GOP Talking points, you guys NO best!
Leave the blunt talking to those with real guts, those like Alan Grayson & Co.
according to Progressive Rep Grayson:
The GOP HCR Plan is Don’t get sick!
and if you Do get Sick — Die quickly!
and I would add this little footnote, if you Do get Sick —
… Just go Bankrupt, that’s OK with them!
As long as those on Orrin’s Xmas List, Don’t have to Pay for anything — it’s fine by them!
Here’s a brief refresher course on how the Republican Party approaches Social Problems, like Health Care, and how they approach Fiscal Responsibility, when THEY happen to be the one’s in power …
Medicare’s ‘Doughnut Hole’
By Jennifer Hoar, July 26, 2006
(CBS) Medicare Part D is providing prescription drug coverage to millions of older Americans. But ever since the program went into effect in January, there’s been an epidemic of confusion and headaches.
To highlight the issue, Democrats held a hearing on whom the coverage gap hurts.
“We feel there is something very wrong with the way Medicare Part D is written,” says David Madison, who’s taking one very expensive cancer drug. He says he reached the “doughnut hole” in a month.
The total cost of his care, he told us, plus the coverage gap is wiping him out.
“It could eventually lead to bankruptcy,” he says. “It is catastrophic.”
and the Fiscal Hawks at the time noted another “little problem” with this GOP “Unfunded Mandate” (one of dozens of such Mandates) … this “little problem” is what Senator Orrin Hatch just called “Standard Practice” for the Bush led Congress.
The Impact of Medicare Prescription
Drug Part D Coverage
January 8, 2008
Part D is seen by some of the respondents as an “unfunded mandate” from the federal government to the state and to the organizations that assist Medicare beneficiaries.
“Unfunded mandates force providers to provide information and work arounds to make Part D work. There are no provisions for the extra work and costs to providers.”
Not that we should really be surprised by this W-Era “Standard Practice” — it was their MO for 8 years — to Kick the true costs of anything down the road, for someone else to solve. Indeed, some of the GOP’s most costly initiatives, like GWOT, were effectively funded with Blank Checks, and were effectively taken “Off Budget” too.
Hmmm? Why hide the Costs of these “Unfunded Mandates” — I guess Orrin and his cohorts are not too fond of paying for their own Legislation. It’s Not their Problem really, it’s a National Emergency, leave it to others to clean up the mess, I guess … (Hmmm I think a see a pattern forming.)
Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion
By David Stout and Robert Pear
February 4, 2008
President Bush submitted a federal budget of $3.1 trillion on Monday, declaring that the spending plan would keep the United States safe and prosperous and, despite its record size, would adhere to his principle of letting Americans keep as much of their own money as possible.
The spending package for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no big surprises, especially since its key elements had already been reported in detail in recent days. The Pentagon’s proposed budget, for instance, is $515.4 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent over this year, meaning that military spending would be the highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. And the White House’s plans for trimming Medicare and Medicaid have also been previewed.
Democrats reacted so vehemently to the president’s proposals and predictions that it seemed as if they and the president were talking about two different documents. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, issued a statement saying that the budget was “fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing our skyrocketing debt.”
“President Bush’s fiscal policies are the worst in our nation’s history – he has turned record surpluses into record deficits – and this budget is more of the same,” Mr. Reid said.
The proposed budget assumes that the “temporary” tax cuts that Mr. Bush pushed through Congress earlier in the decade, when Republicans were in control, will not be allowed to expire in the next few years, as they are supposed to on paper. In fact, people of both parties have acknowledged that it would be difficult politically to call for ending the tax cuts.
But Ms. Snowe, who criticized several aspects of the proposed budget, said making tax cuts for the “wealthiest Americans” is not the appropriate way to put the country’s finances in order, “a goal that is not mutually exclusive with an obligation to the most vulnerable among us.”
eh, What about those Bush Era Tax Cuts again — another “Unfunded GOP Mandate” — which was sold as just “a temporary Fix”? We were promised they’d “Sunset” in 10 years, SO some of the fiscally responsible Dems, grudgingly went along, with this Welfare for the Wealthy program. Those Tax Cuts, targeted to the Wealthy, really stimulated the Economy, didn’t they?
It sure is Booming isn’t it!?!
When the hell, DO they Expire anyways?
Tax Cuts of 2001
a sunset provision in the Act reinstates the tax to its original levels (and indeed, all tax cuts contained in the Act) on January 1, 2011 in order to comply with the Byrd Rule.
The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
The Congressional Budget Act governs the role of Congress in the budget process. Among other provisions, it affects Senate rules of debate during the budget reconciliation, not least by preventing the use of the filibuster against the budget resolutions. The Byrd rule, named after its principal sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd, […] The rule allows Senators to raise a point of order against any provision held to be extraneous, where extraneous is defined according to one of several criteria. The definition of extraneous includes provisions that are outside the jurisdiction of the committee or that do not affect revenues nor outlays.
Looks like “budget reconciliation” CAN be used to insure a lot of things get done, as long as, it’s paid for somehow — without increasing the debt? (isn’t that what HCR does — pay for itself?)
Thanks Senator Byrd — who’s team is that guy on again? A law that ensures Fiscal Responsibility — Imagine that, Who knew!
Let the Sunseting on the Bush Era Practices, begin!
Because, afterall if we had left the GOP status quo, Credit-Card-mentality Party, in charge, there’s No telling How soon the country would have been Totally Bankrupt, if their track record is to be any guide:
“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem.” – George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.
The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq’s per-person GDP. It’s like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US.
Too bad Bush didn’t know how to take his own advice. (Perhaps he had too many “bad advisers”, around him, eh?)
Nobel laureate [Joseph Stiglitz] estimates wars’ cost at more than $3 trillion
By Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers – February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON – When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.
Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.
When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars’ costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.
The White House doesn’t care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who’s now a professor at Columbia University.
“People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz’s research.
“It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?“
Well the Bush Administration wouldn’t want to listen to any “Nobel laureate” Economists — Where’s the Fun in that?
Those Eggheads, with their PhD’s and their Calculators, and their Spreadsheets, with NO HIDDEN Blocks for “Off Budget” items — well they just could force someone to re-Adjust some of their “Standard Practices”, Couldn’t they?
Factual Accounting is for Chumps! (and for future generations for contend with — But NOT for the GOP!)
Well funny how the GOP Senators, and their Media Outlets, don’t let anything resembling Fiscal Facts, to get in the way either. As long as they can blame the Dems for being the “Irresponsible Ones”, well their own Mission of Distraction, continues to be Accomplished!
Media Matters caught Fox News in just such “Fiscal Hypocrisy” Blame-gaming, too — dang those Chirons you’d think they got a mind of their own!
Fox News falsely claimed Obama budget “4x bigger than Bush’s costliest plan”
April 03, 2009
During the April 3 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, on-screen text repeatedly falsely claimed that President Obama’s $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget is “4x bigger than Bush’s costliest plan.” However, President Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget for FY 2009. For FY 2008, Bush submitted a $2.9 trillion budget.
[The largest George W Bush Budgets — some facts:]
FY 2008 — Table S-2. Discretionary Funding by Category
FY 2009 — Table S-2. Discretionary Funding by Category
SO it looks like Orrin’s in
good “like-minded” Company, why let a little thing like Fact Checking get in the way — when you got “GOP Standard Practices” to rely on —
Standard Practices like NOT paying for anything !
Standard Practices like,
“Kicking the can down the road”,
It has always worked before …
Why pay for anything, when you can always delay the pain, to some “Sunset date”, yet to be determined?