What's being critiqued here, is the incomplete accounting of costs involved in this program. Had the proper cost been presented at the outset, the calculus involved in voting on the bill and signing it into law may very well have changed.
The question then becomes, was the omission of this $130 billion due to deliberate misrepresentation (took the low end of the range and presented it as the real number) or ignorance (forgot to include the impact of changing demographics or inflation). Once the root cause is discovered, we should attempt to determine a method for preventing like incidents in the future.
What's being critiqued here, is the incomplete accounting of costs involved in this program. Had the proper cost been presented at the outset, the calculus involved in voting on the bill and signing it into law may very well have changed.
The article headlines and starts out in the first 10 paragraphs critiquing the difference between the initial "estimate" and the current estimate.
The article then in the last 8 paragraphs critiques the president's policies on the amount of spending.
To critique the president's policies on spending and to do so without the full context of the political landscape is meaningless.