CBS Poll: 91% Approve, 9% Disapprove of State of the Union Speech

[G.T.]

The reason for the hearing was they were asked to evaluate with actual figures based on actual data and offer their assessment....as opposed to using the figures they were handed at the beginning.

I am just kind of shocked that the peoples congress had this hearing and the media deemed it not important for you to know about the outcome. It created some serious infighting in the WH.

Yet the media are so quick to tell you about Brittany and her rehab.

Yea, I suppose I should take this with the same grain of salt that everyone seems to take the CBO with when they don't like their numbers huh?

I always refused to accept the CBO seeing as they can call it Non partisan all they want.....but when it is one party that offers them the data to evaluate, you know it will be skewed.

But this was a BI PARTISAN hearing...and the data given to them was actual data APPROVED as VALID by committee heads of BOTH parties....

And as I said...it created some pretty interesting democratic infighting after the hearing.

I really think you should look into it. I found it very concerning......

yea i tried, i'm not seeing anything on it so i cant really accept it as valid

 

[G.T.]

ouch.......

Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesAbout
BackgroundBoard of DirectorsStaff by NameStaff by DepartmentAreas of Research
All Reports by DateBudget — FederalClimate ChangeFood AssistanceHealthHousingPoverty and IncomeRecession and RecoverySimplifying ProgramsSocial SecurityState Budget and TaxTax — FederalWelfare Reform/TANFPolicy BasicsExpertsDonatePress RoomBlog.Save
Email
PrintShare
HomeBudget — Federal..Testimony: Paul Van de Water, Senior Fellow, Before the Committee on the Budget
U.S. House of Representatives
PDF of this testimony (3pp.)
January 26, 2011Related Areas of Research
Budget — Federal
Deficits and Projections
Health
Health Reform
Medicare
About the Speaker

Paul N. Van de Water
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Van Hollen, and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today.

When Congress was about to enact health reform last March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the legislation would reduce the deficit — modestly in its first ten years, but substantially in the following decade. [1] CBO has reiterated that finding several times, most recently in a letter to Speaker Boehner three weeks ago. [2]

Heretofore, both supporters and opponents of a law have accepted, if only begrudgingly, the CBO cost estimate as the best unbiased analysis available of that law’s effects on the federal budget. In this case, however, critics have attempted to discredit the CBO estimate by charging that the health reform law relies on several budgetary gimmicks. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other analysts have explained time and again why these charges are groundless.[3]

In these remarks I will focus on dispelling the misconceptions that have arisen in one particular area — health reform’s budgetary effects on Medicare.

First, critics have claimed that CBO’s cost estimate double-counts the Medicare savings. This assertion is readily disproved. Let’s be very clear. CBO counts everything once and only once. It counts the Medicare savings once. CBO doesn’t count anything twice. Just read the cost estimate.

The effect of health reform on the financial status of the Medicare trust funds is distinct from the law’s effect on the federal budget. The Medicare actuary has affirmed more than once, most recently just last week, that health reform will extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust fund by about 12 years.[4] There’s no double-counting involved in recognizing that Medicare savings improve the status of both the federal budget and the Medicare trust funds. In the same way, when a baseball player hits a homer, it both adds one run to his team’s score and also improves his batting average. Neither situation involves double-counting.

By the way, CBO accounted for deficit reduction in exactly this way in previous Congresses, under both political parties. For example, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (both of which were passed by Republican Congresses) included Medicare savings that were counted as both reducing the deficit and also improving the outlook for the Hospital Insurance trust fund. No one raised claims of double-counting when these bills were enacted.

Second, critics sometimes contend that the Medicare savings in health reform should not be taken seriously because they will not be allowed to go into effect. This claim is wrong for several reasons.

In part, this charge reflects a misreading of history. The record demonstrates that Congress has repeatedly adopted measures to produce considerable savings in Medicare and has let them take effect. My colleague Jim Horney and I carefully examined every piece of major Medicare legislation enacted in the past 20 years; we found that virtually all of the Medicare savings in this legislation were successfully implemented. The oft-cited sustainable growth rate formula for physician payments is the exception rather than the rule. Even so, Congress has cut physician payment rates more than CBO estimated for the original provision.

The Medicare actuary has raised questions about the sustainability of one particular category of Medicare savings in health reform — the reductions in payment updates for most providers to reflect economy-wide gains in productivity. Although these concerns deserve a serious hearing, other experts see more room to extract efficiencies and improve productivity in the health care sector. Notably, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Congress’s expert advisory body on Medicare payment policies, generally expects that Medicare should benefit from productivity gains in the economy at large. MedPAC finds that hospitals with low Medicare profit margins often have inadequate cost controls, not inadequate Medicare payments. [5]

Because the productivity adjustments are now law, Congress would have to pass a new law to stop them from taking effect. Under the statutory pay-as-you-go rules, that future legislation would have to be paid for, so that it didn’t increase the deficit.

In any event, both CBO and the Medicare actuary have always assumed in their projections that the laws of the land will be implemented, rather than hazard guesses about how future Congresses might change those laws. Surely no one would want estimates to be based on such speculation. Dr. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare under President George H.W. Bush, has expressed it this way: “It would be very hard to know what you would use if you didn’t use current law — whose view you would use.”[6]

Finally, these issues must be viewed in the context of reducing projected long-run federal budget deficits. Bringing deficits under control will require making difficult trade-offs and tough political decisions on both taxes and spending, especially for health care. If we can’t count any provision that is controversial and might later be changed, we would have to conclude that neither the Bowles-Simpson proposals, the Rivlin-Domenici plan, nor Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap would really reduce the deficit. In fact, if we can’t count any provision that a later Congress might reverse, we can’t do serious deficit reduction.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's sort of like the team in the locker room listening to the coach's pep talk. Sounds great. Inspiring. Elevating. We're invincible. Rah, rah, rah.

But once the game gets going and the home team is being creamed, all that glowing rhetoric begins to lose its luster pretty quickly.

And thinking people, once they begin thinking about the opposing concepts of spending trillions more of taxpayer money to create Utopia in the USA while cutting the deficit in half begin to realize that it was after all just rhetoric.

From Rasmussen:

Thursday, January 27, 2011
The president’s Tuesday night State of the Union speech had little impact on support for his new spending proposals in areas like education, transportation and technological innovation.

Rasmussen Reports asked voters the same three questions about the president’s economic proposals on the two nights prior to the speech and then again on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

On the first two nights, 39% supported the proposals. On the next two nights, support was 41%.

Fifty percent (50%) of Likely U.S. Voters now oppose the federal government spending more money in areas like education, transportation and technological innovation, up from 45% in the previous survey. Forty-one percent (41%) favor the idea, a two-point increase from before. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters now say cutting federal spending is better for the economy than increasing federal spending in these targeted areas. But 34% disagree and say increasing spending is better. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

This marks little change from the survey released Tuesday when 47% opted for spending cuts and 33% liked increased spending better. Twenty-one percent (21%) were undecided.

As for the federal budget deficit, voters remain strongly skeptical that Obama will cut it in half by the end of his first term in office as he vowed in a speech to Congress early in his presidency. Just 22% say it’s at least somewhat likely that he will achieve that goal. That’s virtually identical to the numbers from before the speech.

50% Now Oppose President?s New Spending Proposals - Rasmussen Reports

Nobody's going to "believe" anything before they see it, that's obvious. But a way forward is not sitting in a cynical chair with your arms crossed and denying every word spoken. That's the fastest way to lose, at everything, that I could imagine. That's forfeit.

Well those in the cynical chair these days are not exactly unrealistic choosing that seat. When we were promised throughout two years of an interminable presidential campaign how great it was going to be, and then almost none of those promises were even attempted much less fulfilled, it's tough to not be cynical.

When we got campaign speech after campaign speech AFTER the election about how great it was going to be, how the stimulus money would create tens of thousands of shovel ready jobs etc., and then most of it went to pay off cronies and save unions, it's tough to not be cynical.

When we got a glowing State of the Union Speech in 2010 about how great it was going to be and then it wasn't, it's tough to not be cynical.

At some point thinking people start demanding results, not high sounding, idealistic rhetoric. At some point thinking people think it might be smart to stop fueling a runaway train instead of pouring on more coal. At some point thinking people think it might be necessary to turn away from the cliff instead of speeding up the headlong rush over it.

It isn't forfeit to put out a fire. It isn't forfeit to say no when you know the policy, goals, agenda, and implementation are wrong and dangerous.

 

[G.T.]

I disagree with everything you said.

In every campaign speech, he said it will be hard and it will take time. It's been two years, and the Economy IS in a slow recovery, not remaining in decline. I got what I figured I'd get, thus far.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree with everything you said.

In every campaign speech, he said it will be hard and it will take time. It's been two years, and the Economy IS in a slow recovery, not remaining in decline. I got what I figured I'd get, thus far.

Then why are new unemployment claims higher than ever? Why is the national debt soaring at a faster rate than ever before? And why are states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy--I started another thread about that this morning--with no visible way out? And why are we borrowing almost 50 cents of every government dollar spent while the President is proposing spending trillions more?

Sorry, but my expectations for success aren't as low as yours. And I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to the insanity that we are witnessing.

 

[G.T.]

I disagree with everything you said.

In every campaign speech, he said it will be hard and it will take time. It's been two years, and the Economy IS in a slow recovery, not remaining in decline. I got what I figured I'd get, thus far.

Then why are new unemployment claims higher than ever? Why is the national debt soaring at a faster rate than ever before? And why are states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy--I started another thread about that this morning--with no visible way out? And why are we borrowing almost 50 cents of every government dollar spent while the President is proposing spending trillions more?

Sorry, but my expectations for success aren't as low as yours. And I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to the insanity that we are witnessing.

Because Government spending is out of control.

That's not what I was referring to by the economy. I wasn't talking about Government Budgets. They've been out of control since the 70's and I wasn't expecting that to change.




About him proposing to spend trillions more, it's just a proposal at this point and so if you're taking proposals" into consideration, he's also "proposing" cuts, and debt reduction and so you either look at the whole picture or not........

 

[WillowTree]

twisting in the wind.



chasing white rabbits down a hole.




that's what demonRats thrive on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree with everything you said.

In every campaign speech, he said it will be hard and it will take time. It's been two years, and the Economy IS in a slow recovery, not remaining in decline. I got what I figured I'd get, thus far.

Then why are new unemployment claims higher than ever? Why is the national debt soaring at a faster rate than ever before? And why are states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy--I started another thread about that this morning--with no visible way out? And why are we borrowing almost 50 cents of every government dollar spent while the President is proposing spending trillions more?

Sorry, but my expectations for success aren't as low as yours. And I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to the insanity that we are witnessing.

Because Government spending is out of control.

That's not what I was referring to by the economy. I wasn't talking about Government Budgets. They've been out of control since the 70's and I wasn't expecting that to change.




About him proposing to spend trillions more, it's just a proposal at this point and so if you're taking proposals" into consideration, he's also "proposing" cuts, and debt reduction and so you either look at the whole picture or not........

Yes government spending is out of control. President Obama said NOTHING in the SOTU to correct that. He proposed freezing spending at the out-of-control level.

How do you defend that?

 

[G.T.]

Then why are new unemployment claims higher than ever? Why is the national debt soaring at a faster rate than ever before? And why are states teetering on the brink of bankruptcy--I started another thread about that this morning--with no visible way out? And why are we borrowing almost 50 cents of every government dollar spent while the President is proposing spending trillions more?

Sorry, but my expectations for success aren't as low as yours. And I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to the insanity that we are witnessing.

Because Government spending is out of control.

That's not what I was referring to by the economy. I wasn't talking about Government Budgets. They've been out of control since the 70's and I wasn't expecting that to change.




About him proposing to spend trillions more, it's just a proposal at this point and so if you're taking proposals" into consideration, he's also "proposing" cuts, and debt reduction and so you either look at the whole picture or not........

Yes government spending is out of control. President Obama said NOTHING in the SOTU to correct that. He proposed freezing spending at the out-of-control level.

How do you defend that?

Well, I can say that the part I underlined is untrue, first of all. He did so address that. Maybe you need to watch again.

Look, it seems to me that your "beef" with Obama is that *you're* the one that expected more than was realistic. Not me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because Government spending is out of control.

That's not what I was referring to by the economy. I wasn't talking about Government Budgets. They've been out of control since the 70's and I wasn't expecting that to change.




About him proposing to spend trillions more, it's just a proposal at this point and so if you're taking proposals" into consideration, he's also "proposing" cuts, and debt reduction and so you either look at the whole picture or not........

Yes government spending is out of control. President Obama said NOTHING in the SOTU to correct that. He proposed freezing spending at the out-of-control level.

How do you defend that?

Well, I can say that the part I underlined is untrue, first of all. He did so address that. Maybe you need to watch again.

Look, it seems to me that your "beef" with Obama is that *you're* the one that expected more than was realistic. Not me.

It is not untrue. And you can't show where it is either with a video of the speech or the written text. (I watched all of it once, most of it twice, and have read it.)

 

[BlindBoo]

I find it hard to believe that the 29%ers would ever say they approved of anything President Obama does, says, or has any type of connect to whatsoever.

 

[G.T.]

Yes government spending is out of control. President Obama said NOTHING in the SOTU to correct that. He proposed freezing spending at the out-of-control level.

How do you defend that?

Well, I can say that the part I underlined is untrue, first of all. He did so address that. Maybe you need to watch again.

Look, it seems to me that your "beef" with Obama is that *you're* the one that expected more than was realistic. Not me.

It is not untrue. And you can't show where it is either with a video of the speech or the written text. (I watched all of it once, most of it twice, and have read it.)

Hey, you must have missed the part. I'll remind you of it, but I'm not going off on a frivolous task for you. When he spoke of the Salmon, he was speaking over the over-bloated beaurocracy and talking about forming a Commission to reign it in.

That, alone, proves the under-lined sentence as false. Then the sentence right after that underlined one, goes further to prove *yourself* wrong. And, get this, there was more! Defense Secretary Gates? Do you remember he mentioned him, and how he plans to make deep cuts? Yea, there you go again being wrong about him not even addressing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I can say that the part I underlined is untrue, first of all. He did so address that. Maybe you need to watch again.

Look, it seems to me that your "beef" with Obama is that *you're* the one that expected more than was realistic. Not me.

It is not untrue. And you can't show where it is either with a video of the speech or the written text. (I watched all of it once, most of it twice, and have read it.)

Hey, you must have missed the part. I'll remind you of it, but I'm not going off on a frivolous task for you. When he spoke of the Salmon, he was speaking over the over-bloated beaurocracy and talking about forming a Commission to reign it in.

That, alone, proves the under-lined sentence as false. Then the sentence right after that underlined one, goes further to prove *yourself* wrong. And, get this, there was more! Defense Secretary Gates? Do you remember he mentioned him, and how he plans to make deep cuts? Yea, there you go again being wrong about him not even addressing it.

We're going to address it by creating a new (government funded) commission to study it? Yeah right. Way to go Mr. President.

We're going to address it by moving funds around within the government but not actually just not spending money? Yeah right. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic really worked out well didn't it.

When you say you're recommending freezing spending at current levels--shall I remind you that the current levels are producing a trillion and a half dollar deficits?--while proposing a potential of trillions in new spending, then I say I am not wrong in my perspective about that.

 

[G.T.]

It is not untrue. And you can't show where it is either with a video of the speech or the written text. (I watched all of it once, most of it twice, and have read it.)

Hey, you must have missed the part. I'll remind you of it, but I'm not going off on a frivolous task for you. When he spoke of the Salmon, he was speaking over the over-bloated beaurocracy and talking about forming a Commission to reign it in.

That, alone, proves the under-lined sentence as false. Then the sentence right after that underlined one, goes further to prove *yourself* wrong. And, get this, there was more! Defense Secretary Gates? Do you remember he mentioned him, and how he plans to make deep cuts? Yea, there you go again being wrong about him not even addressing it.

We're going to address it by creating a new (government funded) commission to study it? Yeah right. Way to go Mr. President.

We're going to address it by moving funds around within the government but not actually just not spending money? Yeah right. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic really worked out well didn't it.

When you say you're recommending freezing spending at current levels--shall I remind you that the current levels are producing a trillion and a half dollar deficits?--while proposing a potential of trillions in new spending, then I say I am not wrong in my perspective about that.

Just because you don't agree with him and think that you personally know better doesn't mean he didn't address it as a concern.

 

[Hot Wire]

Didnt watch that lying, fascist, racist hussein obama do his propaganda speech.Maybe he will order us next year to watch it by decree.Just like he says we MUST buy health insurance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey, you must have missed the part. I'll remind you of it, but I'm not going off on a frivolous task for you. When he spoke of the Salmon, he was speaking over the over-bloated beaurocracy and talking about forming a Commission to reign it in.

That, alone, proves the under-lined sentence as false. Then the sentence right after that underlined one, goes further to prove *yourself* wrong. And, get this, there was more! Defense Secretary Gates? Do you remember he mentioned him, and how he plans to make deep cuts? Yea, there you go again being wrong about him not even addressing it.

We're going to address it by creating a new (government funded) commission to study it? Yeah right. Way to go Mr. President.

We're going to address it by moving funds around within the government but not actually just not spending money? Yeah right. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic really worked out well didn't it.

When you say you're recommending freezing spending at current levels--shall I remind you that the current levels are producing a trillion and a half dollar deficits?--while proposing a potential of trillions in new spending, then I say I am not wrong in my perspective about that.

Just because you don't agree with him and think that you personally know better doesn't mean he didn't address it as a concern.

When he doesn't suggest not spending a single dime that is currently being spent sure says to me that he didn't address it as a concern.

 

[G.T.]

We're going to address it by creating a new (government funded) commission to study it? Yeah right. Way to go Mr. President.

We're going to address it by moving funds around within the government but not actually just not spending money? Yeah right. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic really worked out well didn't it.

When you say you're recommending freezing spending at current levels--shall I remind you that the current levels are producing a trillion and a half dollar deficits?--while proposing a potential of trillions in new spending, then I say I am not wrong in my perspective about that.

Just because you don't agree with him and think that you personally know better doesn't mean he didn't address it as a concern.

When he doesn't suggest not spending a single dime that is currently being spent sure says to me that he didn't address it as a concern.

Because in the real world not spending a single dime means a lot of real-life families don't eat, dont spend on private businesses, private businesses implode, etc. etc. etc. and many more effects that me and presumably you aren't studied in.

Sometimes, stopping spending on something could create a bigger debt problem down the road. That's a pretty good reason we can't just "hault everything." Cutting off our noses to spite our faces isn't going to be a good long term plan.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nice diversion and non sequitur G.T. There are other threads to debate social issues and/or whether it is the federal government's responsibility to feed the hungry, etc. Also how well we can do that if we are bankrupt and the economy collapses completely.

Let's try this again.

I have your credit card and am maxing it out and generating huge over limit penalities as well as huge debts for you. And I continue to do that while looking deeply into your eyes and saying with all the sincerity I can muster, "I am concerned that you are spending too much money."

How sincere would you believe that I was?

 

[G.T.]

Nice diversion and non sequitur G.T. There are other threads to debate social issues and/or whether it is the federal government's responsibility to feed the hungry, etc. Also how well we can do that if we are bankrupt and the economy collapses completely.

Let's try this again.

I have your credit card and am maxing it out and generating huge over limit penalities as well as huge debts for you. And I continue to do that while looking deeply into your eyes and saying with all the sincerity I can muster, "I am concerned that you are spending too much money."

How sincere would you believe that I was?

The real world doesn't work like that.

NYS, for example is in Debt.

If they cut ALL spending.

The guy who collects tolls on the highways, presumably more than his pay, cannot work. (do you think he'll work for free?)

Their "spending cut," in this case, costs them more.

That's what I meant.

It sounds nice to compare it to a real life person with a credit card, but it's not.

It sounds nice to say "we're not going to spend a single dime!" and expect that that somehow solves the Debt, it doesn't. The cuts have to be strategic, and we still need to invest where said investment would yield future GAIN, thus more debt reduction.

I like how you think it's just as simple as turning off a light switch. It's not. Try reality.

 

[BlindBoo]

Didnt watch that lying, fascist, racist hussein obama do his propaganda speech.Maybe he will order us next year to watch it by decree.Just like he says we MUST buy health insurance.

Welcome to the 29%er club.