Nothing to See: Only ABC Mentions the Hundreds of Billions ObamaCare Will Add to Deficit
NBC and CBS completely skipped a new report indicating that President Obama's health care law will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt. ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday allowed a mere 17 seconds to the revelation that the law could balloon the deficit by $340 billion.
News reader Josh Elliott swiftly explained, "And President Obama's health care law could up costing a lot more than previously expected, at least according to one new study. It found that the law could add some $340 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade." However, he also parroted talking points that, according to the White House, the study was simply "new math." This was the only mention on GMA. NBC's Today and CBS This Morning ignored the story.
The $340 billion number came from conservative economist Charles Blahous and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. However, the number could end up being even higher than that, according to a piece in Inventors Business Daily:
President Obama's signature health reform law will add as much as $527 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, not cut them as advertised, according to a report released Tuesday.
The Affordable Care Act will add as much as $1.2 trillion to federal spending between 2012 and 2021, the report also finds. Charles Blahous, who serves as one of Medicare's trustees, wrote the report, published by George Mason University's Mercatus Center.
A transcript of the April 10 news brief, which aired at 8:02am EDT, follows:
JOSH ELLIOTT: And President Obama's health care law could up costing a lot more than previously expected, at least according to one new study. It found that the law could add some $340 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. The White House dismisses the study, however, calling it, and I do quote, "new math," end quote.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So does this mean there is a little hope left??
Submitted by MOONSTRUCK on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:27pm.
I keep thinking if just ONE msm outlet would start telling the facts and the truth. I won't hold my breath.
I really like that " News
Submitted by ray johnson on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:33pm.
I really like that " News reader " title....Have you been using that?
Saaaay....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:39pm.
...Who made this water so wet???
According to a "CONSERVATIVE" economist
Submitted by minky on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:52pm.
I heard a brief mention of this on the radio today, but I'm not sure what news service it was. The reporter mentioned the report was from a "conservative" economist!!
You know, just like they let us know when their source is liberal. ;)
Obamacare: The Reckoning - aka, you've been had.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 12:58pm.
Charles Krauthammer, in his recent column, "Obamacare: The Reckoning," laid out a compelling case, for how I'd offer the R's should explain this to the voting public
Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.
Cost:
Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion to be exact.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.
Not likely to see much of this in the MSM, either. After all, this is an election year, and there is much to hide [censor] from the eyes and ears of the voters.
(;~/ gary
Only 340 BILLION? Mehhh, That's a Pittance
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 1:08pm.
You right wing racists are so close-minded.
340 BILLION is only the equivalent of giving 1 MILLION to each and every US citizen.
Don't you see what a great deal that is?
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Actually, if history is any
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 1:33pm.
Actually, if history is any indicator, I'm fairly certain this forecast number will underestimate what the actual debt cost will end up being.
USA Number one, we are whipping the Euros, at the give away
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 1:28pm.
program...Chart..
You Didn't Build That.
Recalculating...
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 2:24pm.
"New Math" = Recalculated Costs.
"Fuzzy Math" = Purported savings.
"Obama Math" = Wishful thinking.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No class. Just class warfare
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 3:57pm.
Had Rush on in the car earlier, and he was talking about Obama's plan re the "Buffett Rule." I didn't catch where he was quoting numbers from, but apparently the rule (all millionaires would pay a minimum of 30% tax) would only raise an extra $5 billion.
Whereas if every government agency cut their budget by a measly 1% the savings would be more than $33 billion a year!
And Obama is aware of the pittance the Buffett Rule would produce, but says it's not about the deficit, it's about "fairness."
This is the same guy who said that he didn't care if raising the capital gains tax actually lost revenue, because it was for "purposes of fairness."
No class. Just class warfare.
"New Math"???????? Im sorry,
Submitted by TheLoudDreamer on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 5:09pm.
"New Math"???????? Im sorry, are they claiming that, suddenly, the rules of math have changed so that 340 billion dollars ISN'T as much as it would be in "old-math"?