 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
March 20, 2009
DEFICIT TO REACH $1.8 TRILLION.... The news from the Congressional Budget Office is discouraging, but hardly surprising.
And that last point is of particular interest. The AP report emphasizes deficit projections over the next 10 years, and refers to "dangerously high" budget shortfalls a decade from now. The same piece "throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget." I was on a conference call with OMB Director Peter Orszag this afternoon, and he doesn't see it that way. Orszag emphasized the "uncertainty" in long-term projections, and doesn't believe there's any reason to scale back on the budget blueprint currently before Congress. This is especially true, he said, of the health care reform efforts, which the administration believes can be budget neutral over the long term. What's more, the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein responded to the CBO numbers by explaining that the projections confirm that "the recession is worse than they thought when they did these things last time," and thus it is "more urgent ... for us to spend more money to stimulate the economy." —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)Comments
To reduce any deficit Congress could raise the marginal tax rate in the highest bracket to the Reagan era 50%. Posted by: Tigershark on March 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKSteven Pearlstein: it is "more urgent ... for us to spend more money to stimulate the economy." For better or worse, it's a safe bet the new Blue Dog senators will comclude the exact opposite. Posted by: Danp on March 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK"George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus" What fucking bullshit! The projections weren't flawed. BushCo came in and gave it all away to the top 1%. Thanks, dipshit media. Posted by: Obama -- Not as Tough as the Steelers on March 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKWhat would the projection be with all of the formerly off-budget items still off-budget? Posted by: MikeJ on March 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINKGood point, MikeJ. The only reason the deficit numbers weren't higher before is because Bush kept the entire cost of the Iraq war out of the actual budget process to hide the true cost of it. Once those numbers were put back in, there was no way things wouldn't look a lot more grim. No surprises there, although the wingnuts will froth themselves into a frenzy over it. The continual portrayal of W as an unwitting victim of "flawed projections" and "inherited recessions" is really driving my nucking futz... - PonB Posted by: phaedrusonbass on March 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK...so much so that I can't even spell "me" properly ;-) - PonB Posted by: phaedrusonbass on March 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINKOthers already beat me to it, but isn't this high deficit number largely due to Obama's honest accounting of the Iraq War costs? I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict the MSM only mentions this on page D12, if at all. Posted by: Allan Snyder on March 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKBush (along with 90% of media schmucks) was also the victim of flawed intelligence in the Iraq fiasco. It's unfair to blame them. What, was the media expected to actually read the Hans Blix report, when reporting that Saddam wasn't complying, and was a threat? Posted by: flubber on March 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINKMystery Woman: You miserable slug! You think you can talk your way out of this? You betrayed me. (Carrie Fisher and John Belushi in The Blues Brothers) Posted by: phaedrusonbass on March 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKGood work, kids. How much did Bush increase the deficit in his first 60 days? Only two months in office and Obama's got the deficit spiraling out of control. Don't say I didn't warn you. Posted by: Myke K. on March 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKYou know, the US GDP is so massive, speaking in terms of 'trillions of dollars' doesn't mean much to me. Spending as a percentage campared to that of WWII GDP would mean something. Unless we're far passed the scale as that era, deficit to GDP, I don't care. Using WWII as a reference would reassure me by providing an example that I can relate to in which we survived that spending increase fine. Then again, the G.O.P.ers could come up with another stupid analogy, like stacking dollars 'til they reached Mars (or something). Posted by: JWK on March 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINKMyke - 1) Your comment would actually make sense if the situation facing Bush was even remotely similar to the situation Obama faces. 2) Bush's first major ecomonic act was the tax cut of 2001: cost, $1.6 TRILLION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001) 3) Back to your hole, please... Posted by: phaedrusonbass on March 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINKThe hypocrisy, on Blitzer just now, John McCain says that Obama is committing generational theft, where has he been? The theft has been going on for the last 8 years or so, the high priced crooks have stolen from all of us, I for one would like my 401K back. Obama has to spend a lot to repair the damage. Blitzer also said 82% of Americans are happy with their health insurance, have I missed something? It's all in how you word the question. This one went like this: "Would you make changes to your health insurance if it meant that Fidel Castro would personally choose your doctor and make you wait seven years for CPR as he laughed like a hyena at your plight and gave the undeserving poor people down the street instant access to physicians solely to spite your hard-working ass? Or would you rather keep your current coverage?" Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
