Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

Tue Jun 9, 2009 7:21 PM EDT
business, us, obama, barack-obama, budget
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 5 photos
<p>President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the new tax or entitlement policies for the pay-as-you-go plan in an announcement, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)</p>

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the new tax or entitlement policies for the pay-as-you-go plan in an announcement, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.

The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month.

It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.

Obama's latest proposal for addressing deficits urges Congress to pass a law requiring lawmakers to pay for new spending programs and tax cuts without further adding to exploding deficits projected to total about $10 trillion over the next decade.

If new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and the Medicaid health care program for poor and disabled would be exempt and cuts to Medicare would be sharply limited.

"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

Last month Obama suggested a tougher plan that would prohibit Congress from swelling the deficit in one year by putting off until later years the tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.

The requirement for legislation to be financed over the coming decade generally mirrors existing congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that Obama's health care plan will add many billions of dollars to the deficit in the early years. Savings and revenues in later years would have to make up for the initial deficits.

Congress lived under a so-called "pay-go" regime in the 1990s and the early years of this decade. But it didn't stop lawmakers from passing President George W. Bush's landmark 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and big increases in farm subsidies without making the required spending cuts elsewhere. A $127 billion surplus in 2001 subsequently turned into deficits over the next four years of $159 billion, $377 billion, $413 billion and $319 billion.

The rules still exist and lawmakers routinely find ways around them. For example, a bill to effectively double GI Bill education benefits was enacted last year. Congress also regularly waives the rules to pass an annual "patch" to the alternative minimum tax, sparing some 20 million families from a $2,000 tax increase on average.

Still, Democrats profess a faith in pay-as-you-go rules.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s — and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said.

In fact, the surpluses of the late 1990s were largely due to a huge influx of tax revenues from a booming economy.

Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., said the House is likely to pass Obama's latest proposal next month. The plan faces far tougher sledding in the Senate, where Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has expressed serious reservations.

Conrad said Obama's proposal does nothing about the fiscal perils the country already faces, including deficits that the Congressional Budget Office predicts will average nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade.

"I remain concerned about the potential effect of this proposal on American farmers, seniors and veterans," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans said new budget rules ring hollow in the wake of the Obama-championed $787 billion stimulus package and other deficit spending. They said legal limits on appropriations should be put into place as they were in the 1990s, though such "caps" were easily evaded when surpluses appeared.

Congress is just ramping up the annual appropriations process, which in the House would award increases averaging 12 percent to non-defense programs. Obama's proposal does not include the comparable "caps" from the 1990s.

"Time after time this year, Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation."

Obama's proposal would require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere. But again, he carves out several exceptions, including for an extension of Bush's tax cuts due to expire in 2011 and relief from the alternative minimum tax.

The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high. The record borrowing is credited with pushing up interest rates, which could imperil chances for a recovery later in the year.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Andrew Taylor's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (11)
wdupree

Impeach him now before he does the country worst!!!

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 7:50 PM EDT
jdl-28

Thank you I agree Impeach him for he is not smart enough to know how to run our country with out going in to debt. Please start a health plan in debt on day one, did someone say this man went to colleges must never took basic math.

    #1.1 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
    Reply
    common-sense59

    Obama is an idiot. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, yea, that's the way to prosperity, NOT!!!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 8:14 PM EDT
    replytoj001

    Heeeeeey man, it's all good......why worry......we need this....remember, Obama inherited this "mess", he does not actually "own" it...so no matter how bad he F*cks this up....it will not be his fault.

    Besides, the MSM will soon call him out on his "math" skills.....riiiiight?

    replytoj001

      Reply#3 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 10:12 PM EDT
      dixiedi

      He pushed his recovery plan. He pretty much succeeded in making this spending mandatory. Now, after he has done the damage, he tells Congress THEY have to come up with the money?

      I am having a lot of trouble understanding why even the most liberal of Democrats has not yet called him out on his stupidity.

      Does anybody know where Hoffa is? (OK, that was sarcastic, he is our President and should be impeached, not given new heavy weight boots)

        Reply#4 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:27 AM EDT
        gamerk2

        About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

        Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

        About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

        If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

        How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

        90% of the debt is from Republican administrations, and the causes for the budget swing lies with Bush. Also note, saving the economy costs a heck of a lot less then letting it collapse.

          #4.1 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:49 AM EDT
          dixiedi

          I suppose if you want to blame something on someone else you can blame Eisenhower for the money the feds spend every year, just like clockwork on interstates. So blaming Bush for Obama's overspending because Bush signed legislation that continues is just down right ignorant. Obama spent a lot of time tossing out Bush's work, if he didn't toss something out, say the tax cuts, he agrees with them and they become his.

          Simple logic.

          Do not blame this outlandish, irresponsible deficit on Bush or anyone else before Obama.

          • 1 vote
          #4.2 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:45 PM EDT
          Reply
          gamerk2

          From the same article:

          About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

          Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

          About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

          If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

          How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

          Sorry, but Obama accounts for less then 10% of the deficit. The economy faltered under Bush, revenue dropped under Bush, and most of the tax breaks on the rich happened under Bush.

            Reply#5 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:47 AM EDT
            jdl-28

            I didn't like Bush but we can not blame him for what Obama is doing for if he had half a brain he would realize how bad his way of doing thing are.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#6 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
            Kate-837079

            Health Care

            What health care system? Define health care and define system. We have never formed one yet that I can see. Many self-governed entities out there making up what we have settled for, so far profit rules. The problem is as simple as “Accuracy” throughout the entire health care program. If this “could be assured,” would this not first insure premium health care for all, and then automatically reduce costs in this country by 700%? Yes, we the people need to stop the abuse of the present system and the medical profession/institutions need to stop milking it. If diabetic’s can rely on pocket size meter’s to read their blood, why can't a similar system be used that would positively identify a patients (DNA).

            To all health care concerns, the library of congress is very impressive and so can the library of living science be. A place where all that is known in medicine today from all over the world, can be banked, cross referenced by all institutions playing a role in health care, the largest most current up to date PDR, with interactive and secured datatrac capability. Available to, and secured by “institution codes” tied to a "level of acquired license to practice," issued to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and all institutions that play a role in health care. This library should include conventional and alternative, knowledge/research.

            The unique side to this library is accessibility, a patients DNA is required, which will zero into the private, entire past, present, and currently under diagnoses, chapter on a given individual, to include all doctors, clinics, hospitals, rehabs, pharmacies, therapist, psychologist, etc., that this individual is presently, or in the past, rendered service from.

            Why? In order to accomplish accurate diagnosis, to limit multiple doctors treating multiple conditions without knowing who is doing what and prescribing what, so that collaboration is maintained at a like level of knowledge between doctors minimizing failure rate when the patient knowingly or unknowingly provides poor or false information.

            Why? Because our medical professionals and institutions are not always current/equipped with knowledge, technique, and technology on there side of the fence, and accurate information is subject to motivation, is very easily lost, left out, or cannot be cross-referenced at all.

            Why? Insurance companies can return to being insurance companies, not pseudo- physicians.

            Why? Physicians become more easily identifiable as conscientious, or needs a new profession.

            Why? Patients would more effectively be treated, with the proper amount of care, and prescribed medications, via the pharmacist (now with a heighten clearance level and understanding) can flag, cross-reference, deny until further investigation can be verified, insuring that physicians have fully understood the chemistry that is being prescribed. All attending medical entities involved with a given patient, would have fast track, current to the moment information, eliminating the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

            Identity theft, "Security" with post use, DNA identification, can be secured with self-destruction chemicals built into the above-mentioned units.

            The human condition is subject to so much these days, it is no longer the case where treating a physical condition is sufficient, the psychological and spiritual impressions bare much weight in our physical response. This is not new knowledge, it has been known in the medical community for many "generations." Until we decide to get truly serious, we will continue to have a broken attempt at health care, in this country.

            A recent article in the news, (Review Journal; Norm! Vegas Confidential 06-10-2009) Danny Gans; Coroner concludes toxic levels of prescribed medication, same article refers to Elvis Presley with the same condition, my best friend on April 29, 2009 met her similar fate in this way. This is no longer acceptable in a society, that is far to CAPABLE of securing our children, families and friends from monetary thinking, and or monopoly's that also no longer know what the left hand is doing.

            For my friend Michelle, I miss you, Kate

              Reply#7 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:42 PM EDT
              Kate-837079

              Kaiser Family Foundation

              Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group, , January 2008

              National Health Expenditures, 2006

              Total = $2.106 Trillion

              National Health Care Spending www.nchc.org

              The National Coalition
              on Health Care
              1120 G Street, NW,
              Suite 810
              Washington, DC 20005
              202.638.7151

              In 2008, total national health expenditures will raise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

              U.S. health care spending will increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700. Experts agree that our health care system, riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste, and fraud, are the problems that significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

              As of 2008, 51 percent of expenditures were consumed by hospital care and physician/clinical services, only 3 percent was Govt. public health (Medicare/Medicade). We are embarking on the baby boomers retirement years, who are going to expand that 3 percent to 35 percent, when that happens all other services are going to feel a devastating impact. Nursing home, home health, Rx drugs, medical retail, all rehab services and yes a necessity, administrative will literally go under.

                Reply#8 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com