Can we trust government cost estimates?

No. They are never accurate. War. Peace. Highways. Social Security. CO2. Schools. Even pork (earmarks) aren't accurate. Never. Does the government ever "contain" costs. No. In today's Review and Outlook in the WSJ:

Start with Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that its first-year costs would be $238 million. Instead it hit more than $1 billion, and costs have kept climbing.

Thanks in part to expansions promoted by California's Henry Waxman, a principal author of the current House bill, Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched—after adjusting for inflation. Its current cost is $251 billion, up 24.7% or $50 billion in fiscal 2009 alone, and that's before the health-care bill covers millions of new beneficiaries.

When our legislators get to Washington, or Columbus, or Springfield, or Albany, or Sacramento, they forget it's real money taxed from real working people. To them it's funny money; Monopoly money. All they can do is pass legislation that will 1) fulfill the dreams of their party's philosophy, and 2) win voters back home, who understandably want some of their money back in exchange for sending that person to Congress. When the Congress person's term is up, they slip into "think-tanks" or become lobbyists, and continue on the government dole. Besides, you can't predict what's going to happen in the medical field. They estimated 11,000 renal patients for Medicare and got almost 400,000. The only thing that has come in below projections is the Bush-Kennedy drug plan. We know competition brings down prices, but Democrats don't want that. We know tax cuts induce investments which provide jobs, but Democrats don't want that. They want control and power.