The clown show that is Bush administration budget policy continues. Now, in the center ring, George W. Bush does his best Sargent Schultz imitation: "I see nothing! Nothing!" Treasury Secretary John Snow and HHS Secretary "Tommy" Thompson, you see, kept from him the fact that the Medicare actuaries thought that last December's Medicare would be costly--more than 35% more costly than CBO estimates--until two weeks ago.
There is the awkward fact that if George W. Bush were telling the truth then two weeks ago he would have been really angry--and Thompson and Snow would have been summarily fired. The fact that Thompson and Snow still have their jobs tells us that Bush is yet again a liar.
Posted by DeLong at January 31, 2004 08:42 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postLos Angeles Times: ...Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who now is president of the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank, said the discrepancy represented a "sort of a domestic weapons-of-mass-destruction scenario: Was Congress given the best information at the time they were making the decision?" "How much did they know and when did they know it?" Reischauer asked.
Bush said Friday that he first learned of his administration's 10-year, $534-billion cost estimate two weeks ago in a briefing on his new budget proposal. The higher estimate came from the actuaries at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, while the lower and highly publicized estimate of $400 billion had come from the Congressional Budget Office, which works for lawmakers. "The president is always very clear with the American people in the decisions that we are making and very upfront with them about the information that we have," McClellan told reporters.
But administration officials, budget analysts, lobbyists, political conservatives and congressional sources said the administration, if not the president, had long known of the discrepancy. The higher cost estimate was "well known in the fall," said John Rother, who as director of policy and strategy for the seniors' group AARP helped draft the Medicare legislation. "It's not new, it's just now [being made] public," he added.
"This should be no surprise to anyone," said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "During the course of negotiations [with lawmakers], we were at the table. We did tell them our thoughts on these things." It was widely reported last summer that official cost estimates generated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office were based on different assumptions than the estimates made by the Medicare actuaries. Specifically, CBO officials believed that fewer of Medicare's 40 million senior and disabled beneficiaries would elect to receive the voluntary drug benefit or join private Medicare managed-care plans.
Early cost estimates also came in lower than final projections because Democrats largely succeeded in removing from the final Medicare bill a Republican cost-containment proposal that would have required private health plans to compete with one another for Medicare contracts. And after intense lobbying by private insurance companies, the final bill included substantial increases in Medicare payments to managed-care plans, which added to the bill's costs. "These estimates document that if more people go into managed care it will cost more," said Rother of AARP. "It may save the beneficiaries money, but it will not save the program money."...
Another LA Times article on the topic quotes a Texas Republican who was misled by Bush:
> "No one vote has caused me more angst in my short political career," Rep. Jeb
> Hensarling (R-Texas) said. "I hope this will embolden conservatives and others"
> to control spending, he added.
>
> Hensarling was among several conservatives who voted for the measure after being
> told by Bush, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and others that the costs
> should fall within the Congressional Budget Office estimate.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare30jan30,1,2530904.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Brad, you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that Bush hasn't fired or repremanded anybody
for failing to keep him informed. It's interesting to know that (if one believes the White House on
this) that Bush doesn't insist on knowing when he's peddling lies. Bush is famous for not wanting to
be bothered with details, and I suppose that the decision to lie to Congress is one of those details.
But the important point is the Administration's willingness to lie, even to Republican allies.
But the Bush idol is JR Ewing, not JP Morgan. Bush was reported to say, "I've had companies go bankrupt before. It's no big deal."
Posted by: bakho on January 31, 2004 01:28 PM"I've had companies go bankrupt before. It's no big deal."
Of course he's always been pissing away other people's money.
Posted by: jimbo on January 31, 2004 06:35 PMTake a deep breath, you need it. Instead of name calling (liar!, liar!) consider that "reforming" Medicare is basically impossible in the present political climate, and that most legislators are so distracted by disparate committee assignments (and constant campaigning), even financial projections that eventually turned out to be accurate would not impress them. And they've learned that the projections are invariably wrong, of course. There is plenty of blame to go around: most Americans have terrible health habits; they don't save much money, and resent having to spend any surplus on drugs or doctors when they do get sick; and big government program pushers (bloggers like you?) fight against legislation that might empower people to make more cost-effective medical care choices. Arguments about whose cost projections for any new proposed scheme miss the point and are a waste of time. Can't you focus on the big picture?
JHR
J. Ransom, MD, Brad, like all people of honesty, common sense, and interest in public policy, opposed this horrendous and unfunded bill.
The issue at hand is the clear evidence - as if we needed more - that there is no policy development apparatus worthy of the name in the bush white house; they wanted a medicare prescription drug passed, they didn't care what it contained, and they misled lawmakers who wanted cover for the costs.
Posted by: howard on January 31, 2004 09:56 PMOh, I see - so you've never been to Brazil Levitra website http://levitra.rulezz.biz/ 4215&&x
Posted by: http://levitra.rulezz.biz on February 16, 2004 02:30 AMAfter two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.
Posted by: Thomas Jennifer on May 2, 2004 05:28 PMAdvertising is 85% confusion and 15% commission.
Posted by: Lieber Angie on May 3, 2004 04:22 AMEthics is not necessarily the handmaiden of theology.
Morality by consensus is frequently morality by convenience.
In his errors a man is true to type. Observe the errors and you will know the man.
Posted by: Smith Rakoff Joanna on June 30, 2004 08:09 AMPrehende uxorem meam, sis! - Take my wife, please!
Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam - It is better to suffer an injustice than to do an injustice
Utile et dulce - Useful and pleasant
Quemadmodum possums scire utrum vere simus an solum sentiamus nos esse? - How are we to know whether we actually exist or only think we exist?
Adversus solem ne loquitor - Don't speak against the sun (don't waste your time arguing the obvious)
Tu, rattus turpis! - You dirty rat!