Ok, full honesty…that title is a slight embellishment.
This is a curious thing to do, since there actually is no “Job-Killing Health Care Law” on the books. There is one that keeps insurance companies from canceling policies on people after they get sick, and one that expands access to health care, and one that removes lifetime caps from insurance payments so chronic illness doesn’t always lead to bankrupty….I wonder if that’s the one Republicans want to repeal?
Get used to this, BTW. The Derp-a-Derp Congress just took their seats.
House Minority Leader John Boehner was fired up and ready to go at the Tea Party rally today.
He even held up his pocket copy of the Constitution, pledging to “stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the pre-amble: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident …”
If reading aloud documents doesn’t prove to you that Republicans love America more than you (especially when they boo certain “unAmerican” amendments]), then it’s pretty obvious you are a socialist. Probably a literate one too, which is waay worse.
More on this later…but I was shocked, *shocked*, that the folks who made up a new term and put in the title of unconstitutional law would get out of the gate quickly doing the exact same thing.
UPDATE: Oh yeah, I remember these guys…
House Republicans announced Monday that they would vote to repeal health care reform legislation next week. The legislation that they would repeal, according to an estimate by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, would reduce the budget deficit by $143 billion over a decade.
According to the rules laid out by the incoming House Republican majority, the House must pay for all new legislation that increases federal spending – and a repeal bill, of course, is a form of legislation. That would suggest that they must come up with $143 billion to make up for the cost of repealing the health care bill.
The GOP solution? To exempt repeal from that rule.
On page 26 of the GOP rules package, which will be voted on tomorrow, is word that Republicans can “exempt the budgetary effects of legislation repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.”
(Also exempt, incidentally: The cost of extending the Bush-era tax cuts and the estate tax under the tax deal worked out late last year, changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, the cost of a 20 percent gross income deduction for small businesses, and the cost of implementing trade agreements. In addition, tax cuts in general do not have to be paid for.)
This is just for those that haven’t caught on yet, the reason we have a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit is largely that last bit, Republicans believe that “tax cuts in general do not have to be paid for”. Take a balanced budge, cut taxes, and you run up a deficit. Do it for 30 years and you get a $14,000,000,000,000 hole and whole generation that thinks this makes sense.
BTW, Eric Cantor (R-eally?) covered up this b.s. with a HUGE whopper.
UPDATE: Asked about the budget implications of repeal Tuesday afternoon, Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said: “I think most people understand that the CBO did the job it was asked to do by then the Democrat majority and it was really comparing apples to oranges because it talked about ten years worth of tax hikes and six years worth of benefits. Everyone knows beyond the ten-year window this bill has the potential to bankrupt this federal government as well as the states.”
First up is his subtle accusation that the CBO is playing politics. The 6 year/10 year thing is a false talking point. The benefits of the bill (1o years worth) have already kicked in (stuff like keeping “kids” up to 26 on insurance, spending cap removal, ending recission b.s.). These aren’t funded by taxes. The stuff that is…kicks in when the taxes do. Cantor is lying about that.
He’s also lying about the longer term “cost”. Be very careful when anyone talks about what “everyone knows” while trying to convince you of something….
First, the preliminary estimate released by the CBO on March 18, 2010, does not say the legislation will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. Rather, it projects that in the second 10 years, the legislation would reduce deficits “in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”
In order to arrive at the $1.2 trillion figure, Pelosi — and other Democratic leaders who have cited it — had to extrapolate that number based on a forecast of where the gross domestic product will be 10 to 20years from now (which the CBO doesn’t do).
So, to re-iterate…the CBO says that “long term” HCR is likely to reduce deficits by half a percent of (then) GDP. Knowing what GPD is going to be in 20 years is not an easy thing to do, but they tried and that’s what they came up with…savings of roughly 0.5% of GDP in the second decade. That’s a big number, BTW, as our GPD is huge (about the same size as our deficit, curiously enough).
So Cantor takes a highly caveated guestimate which says one thing (HCR saves money over the short term and the longer term) and then flatly declares that everyone knows the opposite is true…despite *his own scorekeeper* saying he’s full of shit.
He’ll get away with this. That’s why they do it.