BREAKING : CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

The American Spectator ^ | January 07, 2011 | Philip Klein

[RobinMasters]

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts.

Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

Full email, from Edward "Sandy" Davis, CBO's Associate Director for Legislative Affairs, below.

[Recovering_Democrat]

TIME FOR AN ASSAULT ON EVERY DEMOCRAT SENATOR UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2012...

[Nachum]

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[stockpirate]

“Of course we’ll see this news on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN in about.........?”

I started holding my breath waiting, not.

[mikeandike]

I thought the Democrats say that with Obamacare we will save $230 Billion. But according to this, we will have to spend $770 Billion to save $230 Billion.

[Azbushgal]

Amen and Amen.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Here’s the problem: In a very childish way, the Democrat party has now justified tax hikes under the auspices of “deficit reduction”.

.Why is it so widely accepted that decreasing the marginal tax rate on individual tax-payers automatically results in decreased tax revenue for government? If we accept that premise we have already half lost the argument on taxation.

[WOBBLY BOB]

[2001convSVT]

Just what I was thinking. The lame stream media must really hate America.

[hattend]

And that’s only the first year! /s

[Freee-dame]

.Why is it so widely accepted that decreasing the marginal tax rate on individual tax-payers automatically results in decreased tax revenue for government? If we accept that premise we have already half lost the argument on taxation.

"Marginal tax rate" and "tax revenue" are expressions we need to use every time until everyong knows what they mean. Politicians and pundits like to say tax hikes when they are talking about rate hikes. Even if they aren't confused, they want voters to be confused. It's our job to get the point across. Most talk radio people hate numbers themselves. Maybe we'll even teach them.

[Mouton]

I love it....bring on Obama and his minions cooking the books again...he has been doing that with employment numbers, GM’s payback of their loan, and his US birth.

[hattend]

RINOs too, of course.

[GlockThe Vote]

Booom.

[GlockThe Vote]

Booom.

[The Comedian]

Whoever the pointless, feckless, faceless tools in the CBO are, they need to be introduced to long-term unemployment, pronto.

They are worse than unreliable. They are diversionary and erratically political.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[The Sons of Liberty]

... and don’t forget the RINOs!

[Arrowhead1952]

I can’t wait for Mr. Weiner to find out! He’s been yelling at all the repubs

Yup. He was yelling at Rep Bachman last night and I liked her reply: "Garbage in. Garbage out".

[abigailsmybaby]

[Will88]

Here is confirmation of a fact I'd often remembered in general, but not the exact details. It should give us all great confidence in our governments ability to project the cost of major programs such as Obamacare.

The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion

. The Medicare Monster

[Hoodat]

WOO HOO !!!