Remember when the lefties tried claiming that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit? That fiction is now being debunked.
The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.
So says this article from The Atlantic, hardly a bastion of supply-siders:
This week, President Obama announced a new way for the government to make more money: put a floor on the tax rates that millionaires face. He coined the idea the “Buffett Rule,” after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who recently complained that he didn’t pay enough taxes. Even though incomes are taxed progressively, so those making more money are supposed to pay more, capital gains — like income from stock gains — can escape those marginal rates. That’s one way in which wealthier Americans enjoy lower tax rates than marginal rates would imply.
They even include a handy chart:
President Present votes present again:
In response to a question at a town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Monday evening, President Obama said that when Congress returns in September, “I’ll be putting forward…a very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs and to control our deficit. And my attitude is get it done.
Brought to you by the big spenders in both parties, but especially the Democratic Party (which presided over the so-called stimulus and ObamaCare), including the Spender-in-Chief in the White House, the US is officially underwater:
US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government’s debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.
So says PolitiFact, a website that in the past has gone somewhat harder on conservatives than on lefties:
We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth. It made a major calculation error that dramatically skewed the debt increase away from Obama and toward George W. Bush. It glossed over significant variations in time served in office. It cherry-picked the measurement that was favorable to its cause. And it is contradicted by statistics for GDP-adjusted debt, which show Obama to be the most, rather than the least, debt-creating president of the last five. None of this suggests that Obama can’t turn things around as the economy improves (and Democrats can also take some solace in the fact that Bill Clinton did remarkably well in all of our measurements). But in communicating which administrations contributed the most to growth of the debt, this chart is a failure. We rate it Pants on Fire.
I’ll just reproduce his letter, because I can’t say it any better than he did (since his official website is giving “Server too busy” right now, I’ll use The Weekly Standard’s copy):
Our economy is not creating enough jobs, and the policies coming out of Washington are a big reason why. Because of Washington, we have a tax code that is stifling job creation. Because of Washington, we have a debt crisis that is sowing uncertainty and sapping the confidence of small businesses. Because of Washington, our children are financing a government spending binge that is jeopardizing their future.