Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘spending’

Budget Day

Bloggers are reacting to President Barack Obama’s 2011 federal budget proposal relased today.

First, a post from the budget chief himself: Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.  Orszag calls on Congress to pass a final health overhaul bill in his budget post, saying, “Congress must now deliver on this promise of fiscally responsible health reform – the stakes are high, both for the millions of Americans who lack a stable source of health insurance coverage and for the fiscal well-being of the Nation itself.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at the difference between OMB’s prediction last year and this year: “It turns out that in the budget it announced last February, the White House Office of Management and Budget projected cumulative deficits of $6.97 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019, but in the budget it announced today, the comparable number swelled to $9.09 trillion — or an increase of about $2.1 trillion.”

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti thinks a health overhaul bill wouldn’t reduce the deficit, saying, “Even as his economic agenda failed to create jobs, President Obama spent a year negotiating a costly health care reform the public did not like under the guise of ‘deficit reduction.’ No question, the government’s health-care bills are driving long-term deficits out of the control (see Robert Samuelson’s column today here). But the claim that the Obama bill would cut the deficit is based on three faulty assumptions.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky says the budget “offers a short-term patch for cash-strapped public health care programs. The administration’s FY 2011 budget invests $25.5 billion into a 6-month extension of ‘the help that states got in last year’s economic stimulus bill with their Medicaid programs,’ increasing the federal contribution by 6.2%. States with higher unemployment rates would qualify for more aid.”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll is disappointed: “One might hope that given last year’s $1.4 trillion budget deficit was an all-time high and the President promised a spending ‘freeze’ in last week’s State of the Union, this budget might signal a change in direction from the White House. No such luck.”

The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini notes that the budget focused “more on the economy than health reform,” and queries her experts: “How closely are they related, and what and how much needs to be done on health care to positively affect the economy?” Responders so far include Len Nichols and Uwe Reinhardt.

And the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says Americans should think differently about the federal budget: “Commentary on this budget will focus on Obama and ‘his’ deficits, but the reality is that the vast majority of this budget is ours, and the story it tells is only about Obama on the margins.”

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Beyond the Senate Debate

Bloggers are mostly immune to the specific’s of today’s Senate debate, instead plugging away at topics of their choice, including a proposed Medicare commission, right-leaning ideas for health reform and a new CBO report.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein is concerned that that recent changes have “seriously weakened” the proposed new  independent Medicare commission.  “The big problem is that the commission is now barred from submitting reform proposals when Medicare’s five-year spending growth average is lower than the health-care system’s more generally. But Medicare’s five-year average is almost always lower than the health-care system’s. Medicare is better at containing costs. But better, in this case, is not good enough.”  Klein credits The Concord Coalition’s Joshua Gordon.

John Goodman responds to criticism of right-leaning health policy ideas, noting, “there is probably no other public policy area on which there is so much diversity of right-of-center opinion than there is right now on health policy.” (emphasis his)  He lists 12 different right-leaning proposals, saying the main area of agreement is Health Savings Accounts.

Louise Norris was “struck by the negativity” of the Chamber of Commerce’s proposal: “It seems that they have devoted so much time and energy to criticizing the proposed reforms that they forgot to focus on solutions of their own.  It makes me wonder if they’re seeing the same problems as the rest of us:  problems like 62% of bankruptcies being attributed to medical debt, and the tens of millions of Americans who have no health insurance at all.”

Also in the news is a Congressional Budget Office report on “promotional spending” of pharmaceutical companies that found they spent about $20.5 billion in 2008.  Director Douglas Elmendorf says, “To place those figures in context, in 2008, promotional expenditures equaled 10.8 percent of the U.S. sales reported by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in line with most years since the early 1990s, during which time that share has remained between 10 percent and 12 percent.”

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Taxing and Saving?

Yesterday we looked at Ezra Klein’s list of ways Democrats could avoid a filibuster, and today abortion rights supporters might see a benefit to using a different way of bypassing the Senate tradition: Politico’s Jonathan Allen reports that “Democrats will almost certainly kill the anti-abortion Stupak amendment in the process if they go to Plan B on passing health care — using a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill — budget experts say.”

There’s been another theme emerging during this recess week besides more back-and-forth over the Stupak amendment: controlling costs and raising taxes. 

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is unhappy with a proposal to increase the capital gains tax, saying, “The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky makes a table that compares increasing the Medicare payroll tax (currently being floated in the Senate) versus the House’s surtax on high income earners.

Robert Laszewski expands on his nod toward an independent commission to look at health care costs. He thinks the fate of a bill “might just hinge more not on how ‘robust’ the public option would be but on how ‘robust’ an entitlement commission would be.”

Perhaps there’s another reason for a commission: Heritage’s Ed Haislmaier is unconvinced that Congress will make the future cuts to Medicare that it is proposing: “Enacting H.R. 3961 would mean that Congress has thrown in the towel on its previous attempt to control Medicare spending. It will also mean that no rational person can believe that Congress will actually enforce any new Medicare spending cuts included in pending health care legislation. That, in turn, would mean that new health care legislation would actually result in further, massive increases in either Federal borrowing or taxes.”

Lastly, a key architect of Massachusetts’ reform plan and an economic adviser to many Dems, MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, offers his thoughts on the amount of cost control in the bills. It’s not necessarily a ringing endorsement (via an interview with Ezra Klein):

Here’s how I think about this: Do you know Pascal’s wager? Why not believe in God? I think of health-care reform similarly. We don’t know if we’ll really bend the cost curve. But if we do this and we don’t do anything, we still go bankrupt in 100 years. We don’t lose much. But if we do it and it works, then it’s a savior.

It also moves the conversation on cost control in a way that’s impossible without this bill. It does real things on cost control, and then it does real things to make cost control more politically viable. It lays the groundwork for doing more. To kill this bill for not doing enough on cost control would be like criticizing the Yankees for not winning the Super Bowl. They won the World Series! They did what they could do!

Friday, November 13th, 2009