Obama Delays Budget Update

[bonnie]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99I8E485&show_article=1

White House putting off budget update

Jul 20 11:02 AM US/Eastern

By TOM RAUM

Associated Press Writer

Dems Refuse to Sign Pledge to Read Health Care Bill Before Passing It Into Law

RNC Chairman Blasts Obama Health Care Plan as ‘Socialism’

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.

The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.

The release of the update—usually scheduled for mid-July—has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.

The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.

The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.

"Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare," Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. "There are some things that can't be escaped."

The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits.

Obama's current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013. Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year.

Any downward revision in growth or revenue projections would mean that budget deficits would be far higher than the administration is now suggesting.

Setting the stage for bleaker projections, Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded, "We misread how bad the economy was" in January. Obama modified that by suggesting the White House had "incomplete" information.

The new budget update comes as the public and members of Congress are becoming increasingly anxious over Obama's economic policies.

A Washington Post-ABC News survey released Monday shows approval of Obama's handling of health-care reform slipping below 50 percent for the first time. The poll also found support eroding on how Obama is dealing with other issues that are important to Americans right now—the economy, unemployment and the swelling budget deficit.

The Democratic-controlled Congress is reeling from last week's testimony by the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, that the main health care proposals Congress is considering would not reduce costs—as Obama has insisted—but "significantly expand" the federal financial responsibility for health care.

That gave ammunition to Republican critics of the bill.

Citing the CBO testimony, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Monday accused Democrats of "burying this budget update until after Congress leaves town next month." He called the budget-update postponment "an attempt to hide a record-breaking deficit as Democratic leaders break arms to rush through a government takeover of health care."

White House budget office spokesman Tom Gavin disagreed, noting the delay was "really not something out of the norm" and is typical for a president's first year. Gavin noted that President George W. Bush's budget office did not release the mid-session review in his first year until August 22; in President Bill Clinton's first year, it did not come out until Sept. 1.

Obama also didn't release his full budget until early May—instead of the first week in February, when he put out just an outline

Late last week, Obama vowed anew that "health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it."

The nation's debt—the total of accumulated annual budget deficits—now stands at $11.6 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and totally ignores previous indebtedness that is still outstanding.

Even so, the administration has projected that the annual deficit for the current budget year will hit $1.84 trillion, four times the size of last year's deficit of $455 billion. Private forecasters suggest that shortfall may actually top $2 trillion.

Budget updates in previous administrations have given rise to charges that the White House was manipulating its figures to offer too rosy an outlook. Critics will be watching closely when the White House's Office of Management and Budget releases the new numbers.

Still, the update mainly involves plugging in changes in economic indicators, not revising program-by-program details. And indicators such as unemployment and gross domestic product changes have been public knowledge for some time.

Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss said part of the problem with the administration's earlier numbers is that "they were just stale," essentially put together by budget number-crunchers at the end of last year, before the sharp drop in the economy.

Wyss, like many other economists, says he expects the recession to last at least until September or October. "We're looking for basically a zero second half (of 2009). And then sluggish recovery," he said.

Even as it prepares to put larger deficit and smaller growth figures into its official forecast, the administration is looking for signs of improvement.

"If we were at the brink of catastrophe at the beginning of the year, we have walked some substantial distance back from the abyss," said Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

[carolaa]

I suppose it's kind of hard to plan a budget when you don't know what those expenses might be.

[carolaa]

It's interesting to see how much money the insurance companies are spending to lobby against a public health plan. It scares them spitless. They are putting a lot of pressure on their Congressional slaves to vote it down.

[carolaa]

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

[bonnie]

Quote:

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

Have you any idea what is in this bill? If you do you should share it with Obama. By his own admission he has not read it.

Everything Obama says concerning this bill,guaranteed choice for consumers etc. Not so. Of course if he hasn't read the bill he would have no idea.

The slightest change in your private insurance,raise in premium,or trying to change plans kicks you out of your CHOICE and demands you take Obama's choice

I like the part about MANDATORY COUNSELING for senior citizens every five years. Except if there is illness or nursing home care,then it is up to the government to set the counseling requirements.

[bonnie]

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

You honestly believe your health care is going to be free.

Not one economist agrees with the above. Obama's own CBO says this cannot be sustained.

[Ted Oplinger]

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

You know, I think universal health care would be a great way to destroy one's freedom to choose (you no longer get to choose who your doctors are, the optimal health care plan for you and family, nor the choice for second opinions and referrals if you don't like the original diagnosis), bring in a Sunday Law for health reasons (you don't get to choose which day the government says you must rest), and have the government tell you exactly what you must buy (no cheese pizza for those those prone to cholesterol problems), how to live, and how long you will live (there will be the attendant encouragement to "refuse treatment", all in the name of our patriotic duty).

It's all in the the pair of bills currently going through Congress, in the rush to get this done before August.

If you need dialysis (a routine procedure today), would you rather receive it, or be told it has been placed on the "special care" list of treatments, that you don't qualify - that you must take some sedatives and pain-killers to be medicated while your condition is reclassified as "terminal kidney failure"?

Sounds a bit extreme? People severely underestimate how badly certain groups want the population to get the same everything, regardless of convictions or abilities. That's not true equality - that's enslavement, in my books. Many Americans seemingly can no longer tell the difference. Take a good, long look at North Korea, or that wonderful tropical paradise of Cuba, for the endgame of these kinds of policies. Everyone - at the same level of misery, and powerless/unwilling to do anything about it.

Stick my name in with the insurance indutries to beat this thing, for I think those pushing the idea are going solely by rosey emotion on how they feel things ought to be, rather than thinking hard about what these things mean to a person's life and liberty.

Anyone want real healthcare reform? Begin with tort reform. Severely reduce the presence of lawyers in the medical arena. Limit malpractice to real malpractice, not the drop of a tear stuff going on today. It's easy - have the plaintifs AND their lawyers pay the legal fees and court costs, and be subject to reverse frivolous lawsuits should it be proven to be drummed up, rather than true malpractice.

I'd also do the same for ambulance chasers...

Next, turn the medical field over to a true market. Let the doctors who charge too much go belly up. Likewise the insurance industry.

Yes, I know - a little too extreme for most people in this nation, for it is based on the assumption that life isn't always fair, and no where in the Bible nor the US Constitution is it written life must be fair to all those with such sensitivities.

I will take the minor unfairnesses of the capitalist approach (even if I'm the one getting the short end of the stick - yes, because I'm certain God can get me past life's unfairnesses) over the heavy hand of forced choice by the government, every time. I am very convinced that every time a vote is cast in favor of increasing government providence/control, that's another vote closer to the Sunday Law to control worship and provide which day shall be our rest day.

Turned out to be longer than I thought...

Food for thought

[bonnie]

I suppose it's kind of hard to plan a budget when you don't know what those expenses might be.

This is certainly true when the President doesn't know what is in the bill he is trying to ram down everyone's throat. How can he know a cost of something when he doesn't know what the something is.

[carolaa]

Quote:

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

Have you any idea what is in this bill?

Well, I actually wasn't talking necessarily about this bill, but more as a general idea. And really, I am more for single payer than for Obama's plan. I doubt the taxes to pay for it would be as much as the premiums most of us are paying now, and yet everyone would be covered.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

You know, I think universal healthcare would be a great way to revive the economy. It probably wouldn't be much more expensive than a stimulous package, yet it would actually be doing some good for the people. And all those exorbitant premiums people are paying could be spent on other things.

You know, I think universal health care would be a great way to destroy one's freedom to choose (you no longer get to choose who your doctors are, the optimal health care plan for you and family, nor the choice for second opinions and referrals if you don't like the original diagnosis)

I don't think that's true. I don't see it as being much different than Medicaid, which is pretty popular with our country's seniors.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Ted_Oplinger

You know, I think universal health care would be a great way to destroy one's freedom to choose (you no longer get to choose who your doctors are, the optimal health care plan for you and family, nor the choice for second opinions and referrals if you don't like the original diagnosis) [/quote']

I don't think that's true. I don't see it as being much different than Medicaid, which is pretty popular with our country's seniors.

Medicaid is not typically used for seniors . Medicaid is usually used for low income to provide medical care.

Medicare is what seniors use.

Seniors really have little choice but to use medicare.

If you do not accept medicare "voluntarily" at 65 when you do decide your premium will be higher till death.

In addition it is difficult to find a insurance company that will continue to carry seniors for full coverage.

Common sense tells you a company that can charge the same for 20% coverage instead of 100% and have medicare pay 80%.

Medicare is broke in case you haven't heard.

Tell me why I am paying more to save money thru medicare than I did prior to medicare for my husband

[carolaa]

Since most people's health insurance is tied to their employment, they are kind of left holding the bag when they retire. I'd say Medicare is definitely better than the alternative for most people. Of course, it's not perfect. The health insurance system that we now have is also *far* from perfect.

[Woody]

In January I had a procedure done in the hospital. Ever since the hospital has been billing me and I have pleaded with them to bill Medicare. Finally on 6-24-09 they claim they finally billed Medicare. I hope. It has been exhausting trying each month to get them to do so. Just exhausting. Obama has not made the paperwork easier yet apparently. It is difficult even for hospitals. They claim that if they rush it and don't get all the paperwork right .... that Medicare will deny it.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well, I actually wasn't talking necessarily about this bill, but more as a general idea. And really, I am more for single payer than for Obama's plan. I doubt the taxes to pay for it would be as much as the premiums most of us are paying now, and yet everyone would be covered.

The general idea is up for vote not discussion.

It has been a few years now but my canadian cousin paid enough in additional taxes for "free care" that matched my private coverage. For that she also received waiting lists for tests for her husband. Her husband knew something was very wrong. They ended up in new York and then found themselves hustled off to Mayo. He had a very fast growing cancer. Had he waited the weeks and weeks for the canadian single payer plan he would have been dead.

Personally I think it would be great PR if Ted Kennedy went to Canada to be treated. Of course without name recognition.

Maybe you are willing to have rationed care or the decisions made by government as to who gets treatment or who dies.

I think that if you break a leg or are bleeding to death your care is immediate in Canada,the rest doesn't appear so.

Our second son was born early and given slim to no chance to live. If he did he was not expected to be a productive member of society. What would his chances be with a single payer and a shortage of medical personal or hospital resources?

He had a DR that pulled out all the stops and he survived. He is now a strapping 6'6" and 280 lbs and definitely is not mentally handicapped.

Whatever care you will accept for your family is no concern of mine,but you and others like you,knowing nothing of what you are championing have no right to determine what it should be for mine.

If paying a insurance premium is not a priority for you go to the emergency room or free clinics.

Or have a insurance policy to cover serious illness and not have such a high permium.

Yesterday I spoke to a clerk in a fabric store that I have come to know. She commented she was so happy about the health care bill so people could have insurance. She wasn't worried about herself as she and her husband were covered thru the union of 49'ers.

When she learned some of what was in the bill,especially about companies can save thousands by given up her insurance,she wasn't quite as enthused.

How can any of you back what you don't know a thing about.

The stimulus was rushed thru,life as we knew it was about to end,no time to read it,cap and trade,the world is going to end we must do this now. Don't bother to read it,just back it.

Health care,people are dropping like flies without insurance,back it,pass it into law,we have no time to read it

[carolaa]

If the insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to keep it from passing, then it must be a good thing.

[carolaa]

In January I had a procedure done in the hospital. Ever since the hospital has been billing me and I have pleaded with them to bill Medicare. Finally on 6-24-09 they claim they finally billed Medicare. I hope. It has been exhausting trying each month to get them to do so. Just exhausting. Obama has not made the paperwork easier yet apparently. It is difficult even for hospitals. They claim that if they rush it and don't get all the paperwork right .... that Medicare will deny it.

But it's better than not having Medicare, right?

[bonnie]

If the insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to keep it from passing, then it must be a good thing.

That may be because they will be out of business. Not because what is running them out of business is a good idea.

Enough like yourself that doesn't care what is in the bill,just that King Obama has decreed it is a good idea,you may get your wish.

Unfortunately the rest of us have to go on the same rationing and waiting lists as you.

Why don't you and Obama take the time to read what you want jammed down everyone's throat without reading.

[carolaa]

I would really like it if you would stop making assumptions about me.

[bonnie]

I would really like it if you would stop making assumptions about me.

If you cared as much about what is in this bill as you do in your slavish support of Obama you would have some idea of what is in the bill.

You don't know but want it anyway. That is not an assumption. It is obvious you do not know and that you want this

[carolaa]

Nope, sorry, that is an assumption.

[bonnie]

Nope, sorry, that is an assumption.

I guess if you have another name for it I guess that will work for you.

You do not seem to know what is in this bill. You want single payer and that is where this will end up as no insurance company can compete. Government(Obama) will take from you intead of making a profit. Insurance companies have to make a profit. No way can they compete and survive.

Obama does not know what he is asking you to believe.

You want the insurance companies out and single payer in. Nothing different than what I said.

You do not know what is in this bill and push for it anyway. Just like Obama.

There will be a rude awaking when people wake up and find out what they supported

[carolaa]

I've never pushed for the bill.

[bonnie]

I've never pushed for the bill.

Sorry,when you take the view of Obama,support him in what he is trying to pass,hoping this will affect the insurance companies to me that is support or pushing for this nonsense.

You would like to see single payer,hang in for a bit that is where this is headed.

[carolaa]

I've never said I support the bill. You are making assumptions.

[Tom Wetmore]

It would seem that an understandably erroneous assumption since the Republican strategy during the Bush era was that you if you believed in Bush, voted for him or supported him that you had to support and defend to the death everything he did - 100%.

From that all or nothing mindset it is hard for some to believe that one can support the President and still disagree with some of the things he does.