NY Post uses false premise to dispute CBO score of Baucus health plan

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

A New York Post editorial claimed that the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) determination that the current version of Sen. Max Baucus' health care plan would reduce federal deficits is deceptive because the bill begins creating tax revenues three years before it begins increasing spending, "[w]hich makes it pretty easy for revenue to top spending if you're looking at the balance sheets through just 2019, which is what the CBO does." In fact, in addition to finding that the legislation “would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period,” CBO also determined that "[i]n subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits."

NY Post claims CBO numbers “come from books so well-cooked they'd make Julia Child blush”

From the October 9 New York Post editorial:

Before “fixing” health care, maybe Washington should focus on education. Because it looks like no one in Congress ever learned basic math.

How else to explain the Democrats' boast that ObamaCare will save taxpayers money?

They're reacting, of course, to the Congressional Budget Office's declaration that Sen. Max Baucus' “compromise” health-care bill -- which comes in at the bargain-basement price of $829 billion -- might reduce the federal deficit.

Too bad the numbers come from books so well-cooked they'd make Julia Child blush.

Under Baucus' scheme, money from tax hikes starts coming in three years before cash for benefits starts going out. Which makes it pretty easy for revenue to top spending if you're looking at the balance sheets through just 2019, which is what the CBO does.

But contrary to the Post's claim, CBO predicted bill would reduce deficits beyond 2019

CBO: Effect of Baucus plan's provisions “would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits” after 2019. The October 7 CBO analysis found:

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty. [emphasis added]

Post echoes Fox News conspiracy theory that CBO score of Baucus plan is illegitimate

Fox's Johnson suggested Obama pressured CBO to give Baucus plan favorable score. On the September 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest co-host and serial health care misinformer Peter Johnson Jr. suggested that Baucus' health care plan received a favorable score from CBO because the office was “taken to the woodshed by the president earlier in the summer, when they uncovered hundreds of billions of dollars of real deficits in the House plan.” Johnson offered no criticism of the scoring by CBO -- which analyzed the Baucus plan when it was introduced, not “after being taken to the woodshed” -- and which is an independent agency that reports to Congress.