 |
 |
   Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
 Last year there wasn�t a single fatal airline accident in the developed world. So why is the U.S. health care system still accidently killing hundreds of thousands? The answer is a lack of transparency.
|
   |
|
|
June 25, 2009
THE GOP'S FLEETING LOVE FOR THE CBO.... Back in January, the Congressional Budget Office issued a preliminary assessment of the administration's stimulus package. It was only a partial look at an out-of-date proposal, but it bolstered Republicans' criticism, so the GOP ran with the misleading numbers. Soon after, a more complete CBO report was issued, it bolstered the Democrats' case, and all of a sudden, Republicans' love and respect for the CBO disappeared. We're seeing the exact same scenario play out again. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office scored an incomplete Democratic health care proposal, issuing an unhelpful analysis with little practical value. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) not only accepted the CBO numbers as gospel, but called the analysis "the turning point in the healthcare debate." This week, the CBO ran the numbers on the Democratic cap-and-trade, and in the process, discredited the Republican talking points on the proposal. Cantor's fickle love for the CBO, predictably, faded quickly.
Um, congressman? If you believe the CBO when it tells you what you want to hear, and reject it when it delivers bad news, it's not the Congressional Budget Office that's "losing credibility." In January, the New York Times' David Brooks wrote that President Obama is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based. That means he won't sweep a C.B.O. study under the rug simply because the findings are inconvenient." It's tempting to think, under the circumstances, that the criticism might now be directed at congressional Republicans, except no one has ever accused them of being pragmatic and evidence-based. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
Comments
cantor needs a free trip to argentina... or a hike on the appalachian trail. Posted by: neill on June 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINKUm, congressman? If you believe the CBO when it tells you what you want to hear, and reject it when it delivers bad news, it's not the Congressional Budget Office that 'losing credibility.' You seem to be assuming that Eric Cantor has some credibility to lose. Posted by: Anon on June 25, 2009 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKWhat Brooks is saying is that only Republicans should be allowed to own rugs. Posted by: qwerty on June 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINKUm, congressman? If you believe the CBO when it tells you what you want to hear, and reject it when it delivers bad news, it's not the Congressional Budget Office that "losing credibility." Posted by: neil wilson on June 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKWhat if anything about these people surprises you? We all know by now that these republican asshats are nothing but liars. They'll basically say anything. The great thing is that they can be instantly fact checked. Posted by: Gandalf on June 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKAccording to CBO’s estimates, the gross cost of complying with the GHG cap-and-trade program delineated in H.R. 2454 would be about $110 billion in 2020 (measured in terms of 2010 levels of consumption and income), or about $890 per household (see Table 1). Of that gross cost, 96 percent would be the cost of acquiring allowances or offset credits. The reminder would be the resource costs associated with reducing emissions. $160 is a supposed after-tax bait-and-switch/magical-realism Democratic effin' lie. The best part is cap-n-trade won't even effect the environment, unless Obamapet CHI-Town EXELON (free "offset credits" wOOhOO!), et.al., can raise energy prices on the Chinese along with the rest of us middle-class, private sector, taxpaying chumps. Posted by: tao9 on June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINKLet's see if Brooks the subbooban hack will sweep the new CBO figures under the rug ... Posted by: neil b on June 25, 2009 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKNah, Brooksie is far too much of a neatnik - He will, simply, Hooverize them. Hey, Brooks, Mieles work ever sooo much better. Posted by: berttheclock on June 25, 2009 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINKIIRC it was the Rs that misinterpreted the study and used bad math to come up with the $3000+ figure. Even after the author of the study refuted their figure, they continued the lie. So of course the Rs are going to disagree with the CBO. Posted by: Me on June 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly |
||||||
