« | »

Reid Plan Savings (Don’t) Trump Boehner’s

An all too typical media ploy, from the Politico:

Reid plan’s savings trump Boehner’s

By: David Rogers
July 27, 2011

In the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats’ deficit reduction bill is the clear leader thus far over an alternative by Speaker John Boehner, which had to be pulled back from the floor Tuesday night for retooling.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday morning that credits the Senate bill with reducing budget deficits by about $2.2 trillion through 2021, nearly three times the $850 billion credited to the Boehner bill on Tuesday.

At first we were surprised to hear that the CBO had been able to ‘score’ Harry Reid’s plan at all. Since, as far as we know, it has yet to be written down. But then we recalled that the CBO scored the various versions of the ‘healthcare reform’ bill before there were written down, as well. They are that amazing.

Still, just look at that headline and the first two paragraphs – which is all most people will ever read. Which is exactly what the Politico and their DNC bosses are counting on. Because none of it is even slightly true, as even the Politico goes on to point out:

Part of the disparity is owed to the fact that the House bill takes a two-step approach to raising the debt ceiling and therefore postpones actions on major entitlement savings until November and December

Which is to say that a major portion of Mr. Boehner’s cuts are to be determined by a bi-partisan commission in the second step. So they were not counted by the CBO at all.

But the bigger issue is sure to be the Senate’s willingness to take advantage of CBO baseline rules and claim large savings from winding down U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Or, to put it another way, Mr. Reid’s savings are based on the pretense that the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at the same rate for the next ten years. And he courageously cuts them:

In essence the Senate plan allows a full $127 billion for war-related costs in 2012 and then caps future spending at $450 billion. Republicans argue that these limits have no relevance to the debate at hand, but under CBO rules they yield at least $1.044 trillion in additional savings not in the Boehner package.

When interest savings are factored in, the net impact could be close to $1.250 trillion and largely explains the disparity between the two plans, which are relatively close in how each treats more routine appropriations for government operations…

So more than half of Reid’s ‘savings’ are smoke and mirrors. But you would never know that from the headline or opening paragraphs of this piece.

But the report is clearly good for Democrats on balance as they try to gain some footing and mount a defense with President Barack Obama against the House plan

Because the truth does not matter to the Democrats one damn bit. It’s all about ‘the optics.’

And when you have the media in your back pocket, the optics are easy.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 28th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Reid Plan Savings (Don’t) Trump Boehner’s”

  1. Right of the People says:

    Using Savings and Harry Reid in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

    That butt pirate only knows how to spend, spend, spend!

  2. Tater Salad says:

    The video that the Obama administration does not want you to see!

    Here is proof of one of the many elaborate Welfare Housing Projects paid out of the Social Security budget. How can Barack Obama tell seniors they are not going to get their social security checks when this is going on in his adminstration. Average home owners income here is $13,000.00 per year and each home cost the taxpayers of America $185,000.00 – Do you want four (4) more years of Barack and his “Change”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu6ok5ykyuQ&feature=share

  3. JohnMG says:

    Using Harry Reid and oxymoron in the same sentence is an excess of three alphabetical characters.

    Moron will do nicely.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »