Remember the subprime mortgages? 2008?

"Washington’s new favorite subprime lender is none other than Uncle Sam. In a little noticed report last week—make that not noticed at all—the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the feds will lose $65.2 billion on risky loans and other “credit assistance” in the next fiscal year." Wall St. Journal editorial board.

This can be figured 2 ways. One is the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), and the other is based on a measure of fair value. "Using FCRA procedures—the standard way in which costs of credit programs are measured in the federal budget—CBO estimates that new loans and loan guarantees issued in 2025 would cost the federal government $2.4 billion over their lifetime. Using the fair-value approach, which measures the market value of the government’s obligations by accounting for market risk, CBO estimates that those loans and guarantees would have a lifetime cost of $65.2 billion. (Market risk is the component of financial risk that remains even with a well-diversified portfolio; it arises from shifts in macroeconomic conditions, such as productivity and employment, and from changes in expectations about future macroeconomic conditions.)"

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60682?

Comment on Democrat voters, Michael Petrino

“The Republicans are deceiving themselves if they think Democrats, or those who vote for them, are disturbed by the fact that Gruber is a liar and a simpleton, or that Obamacare will ultimately bring them great pain. Honesty and integrity are characteristics that are not highly valued by Democrat voters. If they were highly valued, Hillary would not be the leading contender for the Democrat nomination in 2016. Ted Kennedy would not have been returned to office over and over again after he killed Mary Jo. Bill Clinton would not be revered after the no lo plea and the statements by a number of women that he assaulted them. Barney Frank would not have been reelected many times after it was discovered that a prostitution ring was being run out of his apartment by his partner. Charlie Rangel would not have been reelected after he was found to have engaged in violations of the tax code. Democrats just do not care; they want politicians who can be relied upon to give them "free" stuff.”

This comment was made at the article about how Gruber and CBO cooked the books on Obamacare.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/jonathan-grubers-stupid-budget-tricks-1416009107

Dr. Gruber, ACA architect, admits they lied—but for a good cause

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. [In other words they committed fraud.] Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Dr. Gruber: A lot of people weren’t stupid, many of the violations and problems were noted early on, but Obama controlled both houses of Congress, and even then it only passed by one vote.  Last Tuesday, many Democrats lost their jobs, thanks to your lies,  although to listen to the media and the president, they can’t figure out why.

American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs—it’s not just the ACA

• As Dr. Gruber points out, in ObamaCare the healthy cross-subsidize the sick. He does not point out that embedded within this the healthy subsidize the sick for the portion of their sickness related to unhealthy behaviors. A Congressional floor vote to defend such a value choice, if made transparent and explicit, would certainly fail.
• ObamaCare also forces young people to subsidize older people by limiting the width of premium “rating bands” for insurance sold in the individual market. This was the result of closed-door lobbying by AARP. This one might pass Congress if voted upon explicitly, but the ACA’s architects hid it to avoid admitting that they were shafting young people.
• Social Security conflates forced individual retirement saving, insurance programs, and massive cross-subsidies, in part to hide the latter.
• So does Medicare. The biggest cross-subsidies are across birth year cohorts but there are plenty of others as well. Don’t get me started on trust fund accounting.
• The employer-side half of FICA payroll taxes that finance most of Social Security and part of Medicare are often framed as if they “are paid by the employer” when their true economic burden is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages. If all FICA taxes were imposed on the employee-side they would be more transparent and less popular.
• A minimum wage increase forces low-skilled unemployed workers to subsidize the wages of the low-skilled employed. Expanding the earned income tax credit is a more transparent way to help the low-skilled unemployed but it puts the costs on budget and in full view. The Left pushes to hide the costs and lies, claiming it’s a free lunch.
• CAFE fuel economy requirements are less transparent than a gas tax that would achieve a similar goal. But gas tax increases are wildly unpopular while raising CAFE standards appear only to make things harder “on the auto companies.”
• A global CO2 cap-and-trade system would have obscured the redistribution of global economic growth from developed economies to developing economies. An explicit and transparent carbon tax imposed only on developed economies would achieve a similar endpoint but would have made explicit this massive proposed global redistribution.
• For years policymakers used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize homeowners through hidden credit subsidies. The Left pushed this for low-income homebuyers through affordable housing goals, while elected officials across the political spectrum supported the same thing for all homebuyers through special advantages conferred by government on these two firms.

http://keithhennessey.com/2014/11/10/honesty-about-lying/

http://michellemalkin.com/?p=161169

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829  In this 2011 NBER research article , Gruber states it is doubtful that health care costs can be controlled through Obamacare.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/10/video-obamacare-architect-brags-about-lack-of-transparency-in-law/

Douglas W. Elmendorf--a very important guy

"Elmendorf may be the most important financial analyst in America: his client list is all 535 members of the U.S. Congress. His job is to "score" or provide a cost estimate of important legislation wending its way through the House and Senate. His cost analysis can often make or break a bill's future."
Douglas W. Elmendorf - WhoRunsGov.com/The Washington Post

Others on the CBO Staff

In his own words (blog): "The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession: The pace of growth in output has been anemic compared with that during most other recoveries and the unemployment rate has remained quite high. Federal budget deficits and debt have surged in the past two years, owing to a combination of the severe drop in economic activity, the costs of policies implemented in response to the financial and economic problems, and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession. Unfortunately, it is likely that a return to normal economic conditions will take years, and even after the economy has fully recovered, a return to sustainable budget conditions will require significant changes in tax and spending policies."

See what happens when you don't read the bill? White House fights state challenges to Obamacare

And of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill for these challenges--both at the state end and the federal. Sigh. Full employment for government lawyers. Now that's job security!

The Obama administration responded to the first court challenge to health care this week, asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia the claims that the federal law violates a state statute.

The Congressional Budget Office released figures that suggest the health care law will $115 billion more than previously estimated.

Another aspect of the law that flew under the radar is potential tax penalties for as many as one-third of companies subject to the law.

Read the whole article. But in a nutshell, this may be the messiest legislation, and the most expensive, in my life time.

Congress.org - News : White House spars with states

CBO crumbles under health workload

Unfortunately, collapsing the entire government is the final goal for Obama. That's what he meant by the "fundamental transformation" he announced in 2008. That's what this "constitutional" lawyer meant when he said our Constitution was flawed. After he exhausts us all with health hysteria (over 85% already have insurance they like and many eligible for gov't insurance haven't applied or are wading through red tape), he moves on to amnesty for illegals, and destroying the energy system with cap and trade. In his latest campaign speeches he ridiculed all the points the opposition makes without correcting a single charge or even claiming they are lies. He just swats, as though we are gnats buzzing around his head.

"The budget office is responsible for providing Congress nonpartisan analysis and cost estimates for legislation, but the CBO has been in the limelight in a much greater way as Democrats desperately try to keep the cost of the health care bill in check.

But the CBO admits that the quantity of analysis hasn’t been enough to meet the needs of Congress.

Wasserman Schultz said she was concerned that Elemendorf’s office had recently sent a scored legislative summary to a House office that later needed to be significantly amended."

Read more: CBO crumbles under health workload - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

Who will you believe?

Losing private coverage, cost increases, rationed care, doctors fleeing the field--it’s all there in Obamacare. Why would we want this? What were we promised during the 2008 campaign and since January 20? It hardly matters, does it? Go back and look it up, but it was all Lies. It was all lies. Our representatives have failed us by not reading their bill and then demeaning the outrage of the voters who did read it; our senators might as well be employees of the lobbyists and special interests. We were told the “system” was broken even though over 80% were satisfied with their employer or private based health insurance. In Europe about that many are dissatisfied or think their government plan is broken!

What to think when government agencies have different agendas? The White House Council of Economic Advisors says something completely different than the CBO and the CMMS. The new "fat cat" Obama attacks on the banks is just to take your eye off health care ball/bill, which is probably a ruse to take your eye off the economy busting cap and trade plan, which is probably a deception to confuse you about the complete take over through various regulations, laws and loss of freedoms of everything we thought we had in this country.

Robert Creamer, the Illinois convicted felon who wrote this plan, must be rubbing his hands with glee, a witch over a caldron, "Well my pretties, Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air." Indeed.

Obama's military expenditure projection

"To carry out the Obama administration's defense plans, the Pentagon will need its non-war-related spending over the next 18 years to average 6 percent more than the amount sought in its fiscal 2010 budget request, according to CBO testimony Wednesday before the House Budget Committee.

Despite efforts to cut unnecessary programs and otherwise rein in defense budgets that have spiked since 2001, the Pentagon still will need roughly $567 billion annually, in constant 2010 dollars, for its base budgets between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2028, Matthew Goldberg, CBO acting assistant director, told the panel. That figure, which does not include war costs, marks a $33 billion increase over the fiscal 2010 base defense budget request. . .

Meanwhile, spending on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan still makes up about 35 percent, or $154 billion, of the total defense budget request for fiscal 2010. Long-term estimates on war spending hinge largely on whether and how many additional troops President Obama decides to send to Afghanistan.

Daggett also noted that each U.S. soldier deployed to Afghanistan for one year costs about $1 million. By comparison, one Afghan soldier costs $12,000 annually.

Meanwhile, the current monthly "burn rate" in Afghanistan is $3.6 billion. But that would grow to about $7.2 billion -- or the same rate that the United States is spending monthly in Iraq -- if Obama decides to send in 50,000 additional troops, he said." Link

$54 billion in 10 years

That's all. The CBO says tort reform would reduce health care spending by .05 percent. Lawyers must be wetting their pants. Now, to the rest of us, that sounds like A LOT of money, but in government, which now doesn't bat an eyelash at trillions and thinks the stimulus actually stimulated something, that's nothing. That's play money. That's Monopoly money in pretty colors. We could save more than that by just cleaning up graft in the food insecurity programs in USDA.

Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits. Because of mixed evidence about whether tort reform affects the utilization of health care services, past analyses by CBO have focused on the impact of tort reform on premiums for malpractice insurance. However, more recent research has provided additional evidence to suggest that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services.

CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)

Who are those 47 million Obama says are without insurance?

First, this issue isn't about the uninsured, nor the cost of health care. That's scare tactics. This is a power grab full of lies and deception. If you've ever gone to the ER, you know there are plenty of uninsured people who have access to good treatment--maybe better than yours.

The statistic comes from the latest U.S. Census Bureau Report, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which can be accessed through the U.S. Census official website, according to Liberty Counsel.

"On page 30 of the report, the number of “PEOPLE” who were uninsured in 2006 was 46,995,000, which actually dropped by 1.3 million in 2007 to 45,657,000. But who are these people? Of the 46 million “PEOPLE” without insurance, 10,231,000 are listed as “Not a citizen” in 2006. In 2007, this figure is 9,737,000.

Beyond the noncitizens, a large number are high-income earners. Under the “Household Income” section, the number of uninsured who make $75,000 or more is 9,283,000 in 2006 and 9,115,000 in 2007. An additional 8,459,000 in 2006 had a household income of $50,000 to $74,999. In 2007 this number was 8,488,000.

In addition, a May 2003 nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report, “How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long,” says, “It is frequently stated that about 40 million Americans lack health insurance. That estimate, however, overstates the number of people who are uninsured all year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that between 21 million and 31 million people were uninsured for the entire year in 1998 – the most recent year for which reliable comparative data are available. Since then, the number which is uninsured all year probably has not changed substantially, given historical trends. The uninsured population is fluid, with many people gaining and losing insurance.” "

Unfortunately, Obama is actually forcing more people into uninsured status by doing everything he can to keep us in a deepening recession, from cap and trade to higher taxes which reduces investment, to demonizing the people who actually pay the bulk of the tax load.

If you refuse to read right wing think tanks, like Liberty Counsel, check out the CBO report. The stats and figures come from that report. Obama is taking a sledge hammer to swat a fly. The purpose is not to protect or help the sick and poor--that's just to get your attention--it is to take control of a large segment of the economy. If he cared about all the uninsured illegals, he could have just sent an invoice to the Mexican government. If he cared about the costs, he wouldn't have proposed all those mandates in order to bankrupt the insurance system.

Another one who has read the HR 3200 bill

Letter from Edward Lynch, candidate for Congress from FL.

Dear Friend,

As you know, President Obama has been pushing his “Universal healthcare” plan. There have been a lot of people saying many different things about this new healthcare plan. Therefore, I felt the need to do what our congressmen and women have not done and read all of the healthcare plans out there. Let me tell you, as you can imagine, it was not easy reading. I wanted to be able to give you the ammunition (facts) to reply to those that want to know why we oppose the plan.

First, let me state that I do believe that we need to make sure that every LEGAL American citizen has access to the best healthcare system in the world and that it is affordable for everyone. Let me also state that, after reading the bills that are being considered, if the healthcare plan was a good plan, I would let you know that. That being said, the proposals set forth in the house (H.R. 3200)and in the senate are very bad for America for the following reasons:

1. We simply can not afford it. The Congressional Budget Office states that even with higher taxes on high income earners and penalties on employers who don’t provide coverage, the plan will fall $239 billion short of covering its cost of over $1 trillion. That is their best case scenario without the bill being completely scored.

2. It will not cover everyone. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 17 million people would remain uninsured AFTER this plan is implemented.

3. You will not be able to shop for or obtain private insurance if you do not have private insurance prior to the bill being passed. This is somewhat clearly stated on pgs. 16 and 17 in section 102(a)(1)(A).

4. After a 5 year grace period, all private insurers that are still in business will be required to offer a “qualified health benefits” plan based on government standards. The problem is whether or not the “government standards” will exclude private insurers. This on page 17, section 102(b)(1)(A).

5. No new policies will be allowed to be written by a private insurer after the public option becomes law. Also page 17.

6. Every five years, the elderly will have to attend a mandatory “advanced care planning consultation” for an “explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end of life services.” The consultation will be conducted more frequently if a significant change in health condition; including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life limiting disease, terminal diagnosis, life threatening injury or upon admission to a skilled nursing or long term care facility. In other words, if you are old, you will be consulted about what your options will be if you get sick, if healthcare would not be an option (see #7). This starts on page 425.

7. Page 501 of the bill starts a section that indicates that $1 billion will be spent on “comparative effectiveness research” which is how the government evaluates relative merits of various treatments. In other words, rationing. This is tantamount to the government determining whether or not you are worth getting a particular treatment depending on your prognosis or age. Sec. 1401 Part D

8. This plan would allow for government funded abortions. Since this bill would cover all procedures, abortion is included. There is no exception for abortion.

9. Members of congress and unions would be exempt from this plan and not have to be a part of the healthcare plan. Recently, John Fleming, introduced H.R. 615 that stated that members that vote in favor of a government run healthcare must enroll under the public option. No democrat would sign on. If it is not good enough for congress, it is not good enough for us! This is section 3116.

10. $500 billion will be cut from senior healthcare to help pay for this bill. This will weaken Medicare, an organization already in trouble due to insufficient funds.

11. Hospitals and private healthcare facilities will not be able to collect money from the government plan unless they are “public” facilities.

12. Businesses will be fined over 8% of an employee’s salary if they do not provide healthcare insurance for their employees. Sec. 313.

13. Individuals that do not have health insurance will be fined an amount that will encourage them to purchase the government plan. Sec 401 Part VIII Subpart A Sec. 59B.

14. All “people,” legal or not, will be covered under this plan and identification cards will be issued. These identification cards will not be based on social security numbers.

These are some of the proven reasons why I could never support a bill like this. These are irrefutable facts, things that our present government does not want our citizens to be aware of, which is why they are trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible. The more we find out about the bill, the worse it gets. As I stated above, we need to reform our healthcare system, but this is not the way. In this case, doing nothing is better than passing this bill. It will hurt seniors, businesses and families.

Obamacare--doesn't save, doesn't stretch, doesn't strengthen

Check out the FactCheck.org analysis and number crunching of Obama's prime time address on health care on July 22. Summary:

"Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” But congressional budget experts say the bills they've seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

He said the plan "that I put forward" would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.

He said the "average American family is paying thousands" as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.

Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don't support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut

The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama's figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate."

It's too bad we can't get a REAL figure on the REALLY uninsured American--the one who either doesn't want insurance, or who doesn't sign up for the aid that is available. I've heard reports of 10% or less. Why can't he go to work on that group? Rhetorical, of course. If he did only that, then he couldn't take over another segment of the economy! When Congress went to work on S-CHIP (after welfare reform they wanted their dependants back), the minimum family income incrementally was raised to around $80,000 to qualify, and that was under Bush (Congress does it, not the President).

FactCheck broke down the 46 million uninsured figure this way in 2007 (would be higher now due to higher unemployment, which Obama is exacerbating):

Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. This is sometimes, but not always, a matter of choice.

Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.

Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau. But this does not necessarily mean they have access to insurance. Even higher-income jobs don't always offer employer-sponsored insurance, and not everyone who wants private insurance is able to get it.

Forty percent of the uninsured are young, according to KFF. But speculation that they pass up insurance because of their good health is unjustified. KFF reports that many young people lack insurance because it's not available to them, and people who turn down available insurance tend to be in worse health, not better, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Occasionally I talk to a young man (40) who has been on either unemployment or disability for the last 3 years or so. He is college educated, owns a house which he partially rents to people with similar problems, has sold all his investments, and is scrambling to cobble together insurance for his multiple medications and his bills. Believe me, when the government takes care of you, it's no easy life! Fortunately, he has a mother and father (divorced, living in different states, but well employed) who can help him. When I listen to his tale of woe (often and repeated because it's his obsession), I realize that government programs, even those that are essential for the very needy, keep a person in perpetual poverty and tied up in red tape.

What happened to the Democrat bean counters?

You remember--the ones who screamed about what that Iraq war money could be doing for the poor if we weren't protecting them from terrorists?

"The director of the Congressional Budget Office today [May 11] updated his projections for the budget and economic outlook and is now anticipating a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and $1.4 trillion in 2010.

This is up from CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf's January 2009 projection of a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. In short, the US government is borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.Deficit Now Projected at $1.8 Trillion for 2009.

It seems so long ago, but I can remember when I thought Henry Paulson was the most misguided man in the government. Peanuts. 700 billion? What a piker.

Five most Obamaudacious comments on the stimulus

See original at Morning Bell for expansion and links for these statements.

1) No Earmarks: . . . there are billions of line-item spending elements to payoff leftist interest groups

2) 4 Million Jobs: According to the Congressional Budget Office Obama's plan could produce only 1.2 million jobs. And one in five of these jobs will be a government job.

3) Spending: the bill itself is all the proof you need the Obama and his leftist allies thoroughly love their chance to blow a trillion dollars. The Obama Trillion Dollar Debt Plan doubles the size of the Department of Education and creates 32 brand new government programs.

4) Free Lunches: Obama's Trillion Dollar Debt Plan is founded on the belief that government can provide endless free lunches to the American people.

5) Japan: "We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they suffered what was called the “lost decade” where essentially for the entire ’90s they did not see any significant economic growth.” - This statement is audacity defined. No wonder support for Obama’s economic stimulus plan is sinking like a rock.

"In principle, more Americans say that tax cuts for individuals and businesses – rather than spending on programs and infrastructure projects – will do more right now to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Nearly half (48%) says that tax cuts will do more for the economy, while 39% views government spending as more effective." Pew Research, Feb. 9, 2009