Fausta’s Blog

While the Dems would like you to believe that Obamacare will save money, the fact is that 98% of Spending in HC Bill Comes in Last 6 Yrs (h/t Matthew Continetti), which in graphic form looks like this:

That’s uploading revenues up front and costs at the back end of 10 years – and the first year is 2010, which means the estimate includes a time span predating the bill? From 2013 on, it’s all rising costs… forever.

Not surprisingly, the CBO itself stated they were pulling numbers out of their assess speculating as to what any real numbers would look like,

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

since they don’t have the final bill.

But there’s a lot that’s real. Maggie’s Farm posts,

The Republican leadership is still trying to decipher the fine print, but are quickly getting to the bottom line. Senator McConnell issued a press release saying: “They get there with even higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the first Senate bill.

“Let’s start with Medicare cuts.

“The Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on cut Medicare by $465 billion.“This latest bill increases those cuts by about $60 billion more.

“How about taxes?

“The Senate bill that Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on raises taxes by $494 billion.

“This bill increases those tax hikes by at least $150 billion.

“So if you were worried about raising taxes in the middle of a recession, this bill raises taxes even more.

“If you were worried about cutting Medicare for seniors, this bill cuts it even more.

That’s real. There’s more that’s real and unreal. The $500-billion taken from Medicare is real in its impact on seniors’ health. That doctors will have their fees further reduced is not real, many already operating at a loss on Medicare business and losses being shifted on to private insurance plans. The tens of billions of spending in future years mandated upon the already near-bankrupt states for expanded Medicaid is real, though not counted by CBO. The negative impacts on employment and the economy are real.

Keith Hennessey has a starting (and startling) list of notes on this bill and its effects, such as,

Raise Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage points for individuals with income > $200K and couples with income > $250K. This means you and your employer pay a combined 3.8% payroll tax on wages above these amounts. (This is the President’s proposal.) This is what they mean by “taxing the rich.” It is also crossing a decades-old line separating Social Security and Medicare funding from the rest of the budget. I would not have expected Democrats to cross that line and violate what was for them an important principle of “social insurance program,” but they really needed the money.

And while you read Hennessey’s post, bear in mind that Obamacare will cost over $2 trillion, at least, in its current incarnation,

The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

Once it’s passed, it will not be undone.

But the Dems are willing to push it through because it’s not about healthcare. It’s about control.

UPDATE
John Hawkins has Why You Should Oppose Obamacare: 32 Quotes From Democrats, in their own words.

Today at 11AM Eastern, Michael Fumento joins us to talk about his investigation of the Toyota Prius hoax, the cancer cluster and other subjects.

You can listen live, or the archived podcast at your convenience here.

Join us!

Oh lordy. That would be the worst of both worlds.

The Wall Street Journal has a must-read on the subject,
The Yuan Scapegoat
The U.S. establishment flirts with a currency and trade war with China.

The battle concerns China’s decision to peg its currency, the yuan, to a fixed rate of roughly 6.83 to one U.S. dollar. To hear the American political and business establishment tell it, this single price is the source of all global economic problems. The peg keeps the yuan “undervalued” in this telling, fueling China’s exports and harming the U.S., Europe and everyone else. If the Chinese would only let the yuan “float,” it would soar in value, China’s export advantage would fall, and the much-despised “imbalances” in global trade would end.

President Obama has picked up this theme, calling last week for Beijing to adopt “a more market-oriented exchange rate” that “would make an essential contribution to that global rebalancing effort.” Less diplomatically, 130 Members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury this week demanding that unless China lets the yuan rise in value, the U.S. should impose tariffs on Chinese goods. Just what the world needs: a trade war.

At the core of this argument is a basic misunderstanding of monetary policy. There is no free market in currencies, as there is in wheat or bananas. Currencies trade in global markets, but their supply is controlled by a cartel of central banks, which have a monopoly on money creation. The Federal Reserve controls the global supply of dollars and thus has far more influence over the greenback’s value than any other single actor.

A fixed exchange rate is also not some nefarious economic practice rare in human affairs. From the end of World War II through the early 1970s, most global currency rates were fixed under the Bretton-Woods monetary system created by Lord Keynes and Harry Dexter White. That system fell apart with the U.S.-inspired inflation of the 1970s, and much of the world moved to “floating rates.”

But numerous countries continue to peg their currencies to the dollar, and with the establishment of the euro most of Europe decided to move to a fixed-rate system. The reason isn’t to get some trade advantage against their neighbors but to gain the economic benefits of stable exchange rates—and in some cases a more stable monetary policy. A stable exchange rate eliminates a major source of uncertainty for investment decisions and trade and capital flows.

The catch is that under a fixed-rate system a country yields some or all of its monetary independence. In the case of euro-bloc countries this means yielding to the European Central Bank, and for dollar-bloc countries to the U.S. Federal Reserve.

This is what China has done with its yuan peg to the dollar. By maintaining a fixed yuan-dollar rate, China has subcontracted much of its monetary discretion to the Fed in return for the benefits of exchange-rate stability. For more than a decade, this has served the world economy well, leading to an explosion of trade, cheaper goods for Americans that have raised U.S. living standards, and new prosperity for tens of millions of Chinese.

Read the entire article, with special attention to how a market solution may be the answer to the problem,

China’s build-up in dollar reserves is contributing to the world’s anger at China, and it represents a huge misallocation of global resources. Instead of letting its dollar reserves find their best private investment use, China uses them to buy U.S. Treasury bills or Fannie Mae securities.

One solution would be to make the yuan convertible, and let capital and trade flows adjust through private markets rather than the Chinese central bank. This is how Germany recycles its trade surplus. A one-time small revaluation to, say, 6.5 yuan to the dollar accompanied by convertibility would help with global adjustment while avoiding the perils of Japan-like deflation.

The Chinese government resists open capital markets because it fears less political control. At least at first a convertible yuan might also lead to a surge in capital outflows from China as Chinese companies and individuals diversified their currency holdings and investments. But over time, and probably quickly, markets would adjust and reach a new equilibrium. Convertibility would also increase the domestic pressure for China to further liberalize its financial system.

This is where the U.S. should put its diplomatic pressure, rather than on the exchange rate. Even better would be a joint U.S. Treasury-Chinese declaration on behalf of such a policy shift, which would give credibility to the new monetary arrangement.

It would be interesting to see the effect of a surge in capital outflows from China on the economies of our hemisphere, since the Chinese have been investing heavily in producers of raw materials, mines, and commodities. The dangers of volatility and political risk are holding back a lot of investments, but would the increase in outflow make investors less risk-adverse?

Either way, the answer does not lie in Keynesian-type solutions.

Via Big Government,

For those keeping score at home, the whole idea of a reconciliation bill is simply to provide cover for House Democrats to pass the Senate Bill. The Senate will never take up reconciliation. The Senate bill will become the law of the land.

Here’s the text of HR 4872:

111_hr4872_amndsub –

Val Prieto’s got an excellent post today,
Put your freedom to work, and this is why,

THERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN CUBA.

THERE ARE NO CIVIL LIBERTIES IN CUBA.

THERE ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN CUBA.

THERE ARE PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE IN CUBA.

THESE PRISONERS, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEIR CAUSE, ARE SUBJECTED TO UNIMAGINABLE BRUTALITY AND INHUMANITY AND REPRESSION.

Go read the rest of the post. Stay involved. The more all of us stress the truth, the better the odds of saving lives.

UPDATE
Video, also via Babalu,

March 18, 2010 — 7 years after the Cuban ‘black spring’

Watch it here

Obama apparently knows about something we haven’t been told, via Hot Air and Gateway Pundit,

From the Fox News transcript:

BAIER: Do you know which specific deals are in or out, as of today?

OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.

BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?

OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though.

Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.

What earthquake in Hawaii? The 1868 one, or the 1975 one?

Then there’s the question of the Slaughter rule,

BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: “the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care.” So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: Here’s what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they’ve got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.

We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you’ve got a good package, in terms of substance. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

BlogProf

Good grief. This clip ought to put Obama’s supposed upholding of the US Constitution in the ground where it belongs.

IMAO comments,

Maybe Obama thought the oath was to “preserve, protect, and ignore” the Constitution. That would explain a lot.

Read the entire Fox News transcript, and watch the interview, (via The Lid)

NRO calls Baier’s interview

the single best interview of President Obama in a year, by any reporter.

A couple of things are clear:

• Obama did his best to stonewall and run down the clock

• was impatient

• and, as Another Black Conservative observed,

Normally Obama is pretty good at giving non-answers, but under Baier’s pressure, his non-answers were quite apparent.

But the more troubling part of the entire interview is that, judging by his non-answers, Obama doesn’t know what’s in the bill. Maybe he’s taken Nancy Pelosi’s advice, “Let’s pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it“?

Day By Day looks for repairs.

Where is TOTUS when you need him?

Supposedly the bill will be voted on Sunday. When is it going to be posted?

The Democrats are hell-bent on passing this thing.

and the cartoon version, which can’t be embedded.

In other St. Patrick’s Day news, Scott Johnson celebrates Nat “King” Cole,

While the trend in the 50 US states is bigger government, more government jobs and more spending, Luis Fortuño, Puerto Rico’s governor, is making big strides in bringing the island’s economy to a more competitive standing.

Puerto Rico bets on public-private deals in 2010

Puerto Rico’s government is preparing public-private partnerships to jump-start the island’s stalled economy and wants several of the big-ticket deals in place by year’s end.

Governor Luis Fortuno has in 15 months in office eliminated thousands of government jobs, put in place multibillion-dollar cuts in expenditures and pledged to eliminate the big municipal debt issuer’s persistent budget deficits.

His administration’s partnership initiatives are meant to lure outside investment to a Caribbean economy in recession since 2006 and come as the pace of global infrastructure deals between governments and businesses quickens.

Why the initiatives?

In Puerto Rico, a U.S. commonwealth with big debts, chronically severe unemployment now at a 15.9 percent rate and per capita income half that of mainland America, officials are readying requests for qualifications for eight partnership projects.

There’s a new Public Private Partnership Authority, which is working on deals to privatize

• the Luis Munoz Marin Airport in Isla Verde
• a $1.4 billion school modernization program
• Highway 22

and other proposals are in the works.

A different kind of proposal is also in the works: Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in Congress, Pedro Pierlusi (D-PR), has introduced the Puerto Rican Democracy Act. The bill would provide for a referendum on Puerto Rico’s status, and it’s endorsed by governor Fortuño but it’s problematic. As Tim Schultz explains another point to consider on the bill, that of language,

The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. Congress should condition statehood on making English the sole official language, which would still allow Spanish translations for a population in transition while insisting on acceptance of the lingua franca of the Union.

I would add another issue: Now that governor Fortuño is trying to set the island on the right track to prosperity, is it appropriate to spend millions of dollars on the referendum process – something already done several times during my lifetime – which will be repeated again, according to the bill?

I’ll be one of the featured bloggers in the BBC International #superpowernation from 9AM to 9:30AM Eastern. Read about the show at BBC Blogworld. Their tweeter feed is bbc_blogworld.

UPDATE
More articles on business in Puerto Rico,
Buyers for Puerto Rico Banks?
FDIC Has Three Institutions to Sell; Downside Is They May All Need Capital
‘Caribbean rum war’ making waves all the way to Washington
Captain Morgan’s move to Virgin Islands means billion-dollar loss to Puerto Rico

Diageo, a British liquor conglomerate that owns the popular spiced-rum brand, was lured to the Virgin Islands by $2.7 billion in rebates over 30 years on the taxes that mainland residents pay every time they buy a bottle of rum. The company also will get a new $165 million distillery and a 90 percent income-tax break.

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

“There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. “There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today.”

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn’t consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It’s unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation. That’s mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy “comparable” coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

“People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now,” said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. “If they did buy the same value plans … the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure.”

Michael Cannon at Cato points out that,

Nichols’ comments are also misleading — which makes the president’s statement not just misleading but untrue.

Under ObamaCare, people would not have the option to buy the same low-cost plans they do today. That’s the whole problem: under an individual mandate, everybody must purchase the minimum level of coverage specified by the government. That minimum benefits package would be more expensive than the coverage chosen by most people in the individual market. Their premiums would rise because ObamaCare would take away their right to choose a more economical policy.

Note also that the CBO predicts premiums would rise by an average of 10-13 percent in the individual market. Consumers who currently purchase the most economic policies would see larger premium increases.

Finally, the Obama plan would also force millions of uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance at premiums higher than current-law premium levels, which they have already rejected as being too high. Their premium expenditures would rise from $0 to thousands of dollars. Yet the CBO counts that implicit tax as reducing average premiums, because those consumers are generally healthier-than-average. Only in Washington is a tax counted as a savings.

As I have said before, it’s not about healthcare, it’s about control.