data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/faef0/faef0c76b32c14298a386c540df6989e19b2cd69" alt=""
According to a re-scoring that the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee (based on Congressional Budget Office data), the ten-year price tag of the House bill would be nearly $3 trillion when the benefit provisions of the bill are phased in 2013-2014. This is almost twice the original estimates provided for this bill. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire almost joined President Obama's cabinet. Nevertheless, he was quite critical of the health care bill and felt this new report "sheds light on the blue smoke and mirrors" the House Democrats have been playing. In his interview with Stephen Moore he said: "I am shocked at how fiscally irresponsible this bill is. I've never seen anything like it."
Over in the House of Representatives, a similar analysis has taken place. Paul Ryan of the House Budget Committee says the bill saves money in the short term "by frontloading the tax increases and backloading the new spending." He points out that the ten-year cost estimates are "only" $1.7 trillion, but that's because the spending doesn't start until 2013. And Representative Ryan reminds us that: "There has almost never been a new entitlement program that has come under cost." If these budget committee estimates are correct, then the American taxpayers should pay attention. At the time when our economy is in such bad shape, we cannot afford an additional $3 trillion. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.
Tags: cost, government healthcare, Kerby Anderson, Point of View, US House To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment