Rep. Paul Ryan Absolutely Rips ObamaCare Accounting

I sincerely hope that Ryan runs for President someday.

Ryan’s argument is very weak.

1) There are tax increases AND subsidies to small businesses in the bill. He skips over the second part of this in claiming that it will cost jobs because of the tax increases. Where is the data supporting this? There is none, of course . . . just a bald conclusion that it will “cost jobs.”

2) And while we are at it, what jobs, exactly, does he claim this will cost? I ask this because I heard a health insurance salesman call in to Hugh Hewitt and claim that Obamacare will put him out of business and cost other jobs. Why? Well, some sales jobs will go away because employers will buy their insurance from state-run coops of private insurance companies, as opposed to having this guy scour the state for insurance plans. Is that a BAD thing? Sounds more efficient to me and, therefore, less costly for the employer. Second, with no pre-existing conditions, the underwriting process will be more efficient: there will be no layer of individual’s scouring insurance applications looking for pre-existing conditions because the insurer will be taking on all comers. All this goes to prove one thing — any change in government’s operations or business operations may cost someone their job. Just ask the companies that used to make cardboard boxes for underarm deodorant before WalMart decided it made no sense to buy, transport and stock cardboard boxes, which the consumer threw away as soon as they bought the deodorant. Ditto the medical forms companies when/if hospitals go to high tech paperless operations. Ditto when airlines stopped paying travel agents for booking flights. Or when the government closes an unnecessary military base: it costs jobs even as it saves money. The loss of some jobs is not a sufficient reason to stop progress.

3) He claims the Dems have “manipulated” the CBO because the way the bill is written. This is nonsensical. The bill is scored the same way any other bill is scored: based on current law and based on the plain language of the bill. His comment is a subjective critique, not an objective commentary on where something was done different here from any other bill.

4) He adds in the permanent doctor fix when that problem predated the entire health care reform bill. Why not add on the cost of a couple Navy ships, too. It would be as fair!

5) He has a big problem with the whole “10 years of taxes and six years of benefits issue. ” This is bogus, of course, because some of the benefits of the law have already kicked in, but the taxes haven’t. (He doesn’t want to highlight that because then people will know that they would lose real benefits from the law if it was repealed. So he acts as if none of the provisions of the law have already gone into effect when, in fact they have.)

6) He also says that “10 full years of implementation amounts to $2.6 trillion in spending”. What he does not bother to mention is what revenues will have come into the coffers during that same period! This is crucial: he does not claim there would be a “net $2.6 trillion deficit impact”; he only mentions the sending side. Memo to Ryan — I suspect the reason you don’t mention the tax revenues is because you KNOW that the tax revenues exceed the expenditures. And you also know that, according to the CBO figures, if you just look at any 10 year slice of time, and compare revenues to expenditures, then the deficit will be reduced.

7) My favorite part is his claim that there is “double counting.” But this schtick was long ago discredited just by looking at what he calls double counting. In short, the “double counting” argument has more to do with governmental accounting than it has to do with the health care bill’s scoring. Ryan wants to change the rules now so that the numbers will look worse. Sorry, Charlie . . . that is neither intellectually honest nor fair.

@Braindead Rob Avoider of all hard questions –

You said:

He skips over the second part of this in claiming that it will cost jobs because of the tax increases.

Well my dear Braindead drone, it already is costing jobs. I personally know of 5 businesses in my city that have let go of, (that means fired, laid off, out of work – in other words jobs have been lost and all because the employers chose to let them go rather than pay for the mandated health care) over 50 people.

But don’t take my word for it:

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/2010/09/6-big-companies-claiming-job-losses-from-obamacare/

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=220391

http://herger.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=664:small-businesses-under-siege-due-to-obamacare-june-2010&catid=67

http://townhall.com/columnists/HadleyHeath/2010/10/05/obamacare_is_making_businesses_sick

You (again) wrongly said:

He claims the Dems have “manipulated” the CBO because the way the bill is written. This is nonsensical. The bill is scored the same way any other bill is scored: based on current law and based on the plain language of the bill. His comment is a subjective critique, not an objective commentary on where something was done different here from any other bill.

Um, gee I wonder how the CBO works?

Oh yeah, garbage in, garbage out.

The CBO’s rules make it hard for the group to fulfill its own mandate. You’d think, for example, that the CBO would use its own parameters when it crunches numbers. Instead, the CBO must use the same mathematical assumptions supplied by the very lawmakers who wrote the bill the group is evaluating. No matter how improbable those formulas are.

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, writing in the New York Times, described the group’s process as “fantasy in, fantasy out.”

CBO rules often preclude common sense. Its forecasters can’t take into account any other legislation when studying the price tag of a proposed bill. That enabled the forecasters costing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill to overlook this fact: Medicare spending increases will force tax increases, which in turn will hurt growth.

Political Salesmen

This dynamic is permitted because the answers the CBO supplies make it easier for politicians to sell their bills. They’re happy. And so, for the moment, are voters who are painfully aware that the U.S. federal budget can’t cover new entitlements, yet accept such legislation as a balm for that pain.

“So if I’m right, you got to lie to me

Then I won’t feel so bad.” – Source

You also said:

He adds in the permanent doctor fix when that problem predated the entire health care reform bill. Why not add on the cost of a couple Navy ships, too. It would be as fair!

So let me get this straight. To estimate the impact of Obamacare – (a health care bill), on our economy you think it is unfair to include expenditures related to physicians?

Interesting.

As far as your article on double counting, Ezra Klein is basically saying that what Ryan says is true, but “hey, that’s how the gubbermint does things, so its okay.”

🙄

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will deliver the Republican address following the President’s State of the Union address to Congress on January 25, 2011.

I hope it’s a killer!

Chairman Ryan is the leading voice for fiscal discipline and common-sense solutions to cut spending and create jobs among Republicans.

Paul Ryan will have none of Obama’s ”messaging” issues.
He KNOWS what he’ll want to say.
And he’ll say it clearly and powerfully.

I only learned general math in high school, but just using that kind of math it is easy to figure out that Obama’s numbers don’t add up they way he said they would. I am sure few of us that frequent FA ain’t surprised by this. I wonder what kind of math the colleges Obama attended didn’t attend taught.