Mr President, I've seen enough or why yes I am still blaming Bush

Can someone help me out...I'm trying to understand the chart, but I'm confused about a couple of things...

I don't see anything about "$1.2T (and counting)" in non-discretionary spending to cover the medicare/medicaid gaps from 2009 and 2010, and which will probably get higher over the next few years. Are you saying that since Medicare isn't a "new program", that designating new debt to cover the gaps isn't an Obama cost?

Are they counting the 1T that you're not showing from Obamacare (from the CBO estimate) as all coming after 2017?

While I agree that the "Bush tax cuts" deservedly go in the Bush column, don't they go in the Obama column also (he extended them, right?) As for Paxil's complaint that most tax cuts go to the "rich", I'd imagine that if more of the country actually paid taxes, then they could receive cuts, too. But 47M workers aren't paying a dime in federal taxes.

How is it that the "Iraq, Afghanistan and defense" goes 1.5T in "new costs" to Bush, but "savings" for Obama? Are you including new airplane and shipbuilding budgets, R&D initiatives, etc? Those are "new costs" compared to January 2009. Are you still counting overseas contingency budgets as "neutral" to Obama, b/c he's just continuing what Bush started? Are you counting payments to NATO and the projected costs for operations like Libya and other "peacekeeping"?

Good way of showing debt, though I'd like to see something with inflation-adjusted numbers and/or % of GDP, to make it more comparable

 

It does not counter the fact that the govt's receipts were an all-time high with the tax cuts in place.

Here's a little math...

Over the next 10 years, the govt. is on pace to spend about $40T. The claim is the Bush tax cuts cost $2T. Of that $40T, $12T to $15T will be borrowed money, adding to the debt. Raising everyone's taxes by letting all of the tax cuts expire barely makes a dent. And this is assuming the govt. doesn't grow at all.

 

And yet federal revenues are still well up over 2000 levels.

 

You deserve a better answer from me, and I'll provide it later this morning. But for now:

[video=youtube;ACbwND52rrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw[/video]

 

Here's your better answer from me.

Republicans never enjoyed a 60 vote majority in the senate, yet were able to pass all sorts of things. Which is unfortunate, because they are supposed to be the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and didn't show it when they had both houses and the presidency. Like the Democrats, they are not a monolithic ideological group, but their leadership was able to get things done.

I have repeatedly posted my support for a government option, but the option I envisioned was NEVER considered. You talk about who's being paid off by the health care industry, and it sure looks like EVERYONE, since health care reform was all about forcing everyone to have health insurance provided by the industry. It was what Obama talked about from day 1, what democrats of every stripe talked about from day 1, and what the 60-40 procedural vote was in favor of.

What I envisioned was a VA style health care delivery system. The govt. builds hospitals, buys equipment, buys medicine, hires doctors, and treats people in its facilities for cost, basically. Slightly above cost so the few extra dollars per flu shot administered could be pooled to pay for the far more occasional heart or brain surgery. Not a dime to insurance companies, and not a single regulation of insurance companies required.

Nancy Pelosi did a great job as speaker in terms of keeping her membership in line. She counted her votes and knew which vulnerable members she could allow to vote the way the people wanted, to help save their jobs.

The whole mess was a debacle and ill timed and was made a priority when the economy was hurting and jobs and real estate (e.g. loss of wealth of main street) were far more urgent issues.

So I write that the whole thing is an issue of leadership and you disregard it as if it doesn't matter. It surely does. A guy you probably hate, W, was able to lead. He was able to convince his smaller government and fiscally responsible party to pass his agenda. HIS agenda. HIS SOCIAL agenda. Things like No Child Left Behind, a ginormous highway (infrastructure) bill, the biggest spending increase on Medicare (prescription drug program), etc. He and his people wrote legislation and submitted it to congress. He went on the road and rallied the people to pressure congress to vote for it. He knew how to wield the hammer and coerce congress to vote on things like war resolutions and reorganization of many departments into Homeland Security.

Clinton was just as good at leading, if not even better. When he had majorities in both houses, his presidency was in serious jeopardy. He tried to ram health care reform down everyone's throats and it cost him both houses. Then he wielded the hammer and got things done. Even balanced the budget.

What's Obama done? He's set the agenda - "I want health care reform." He never submitted an actual proposal, though. He went out on the road and told everyone what they wanted to hear, though not much of it resembled the final bill - that nobody read before voting on. The Bill didn't get written until the last minute, and wasn't properly vetted.

It's a sad thing that W managed things better than Obama has, but it's the sorry truth. Consider his leadership on stem cell research. I have NO problem with any form of stem cell research, myself, but I acknowledge there is a huge number of people who oppose it. What did W do? A compromise that nobody was happy with ultimately, but that appealed to both sides: use existing stem cell lines (can proceed and fund stem cell research), no new stem cell lines (raw meat for the religious conservatives).

Feel free to make the case that without 14 weeks of (yes it's true) filibuster proof senate, that Obama would have gotten his health care bill passed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/politics/28obama.html?_r=1&hp

President on Sidelines in Critical Battle Over Debt Ceiling

 

Back to the charts, it looks like one of my questions was answered. From Medicare's Office of the Actuary:

However, the part that concerns me is this:

Am I wrong in thinking that cost "shifting towards government" = cost "shifting away from users to taxpayers"?

 

Maybe. It might be shifting away from "payers of insurance premiums" rather than from "users of healthcare services".

barfo