« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s new rule: When the math doesn’t work, reject math

And shoot the messenger

We now have a pattern on our hands. When the math behind Barack Obama’s health care plans doesn’t work, Obama attacks math. Now, he doesn’t do it directly. He gets Peter Orzsag to debase his intellect for Obama’s political ends. First, he did it with the IMF score. Then this week he pressured the CBO scorers early this week after their math provided defeat after defeat to his healthcare dreams. And then this weekend, Orzsag has attacked Doug Elmendorf, the CBO director.

Case 1: The IMF. At a G-20 meeting earlier this year, Barack Obama came away empty-handed. The only success was to send money to the IMF. $100b. This wasn’t going to pass on its own, so they attached it to the Supplemental that paid for our troops. And claimed that $100b leaving the treasury costs nothing. According to the Politico, Orzsag had a totally unprecedented meeting with the OMB scorers putting political pressure on them to cook the books. Only a little comment at the time. Oh … and no one bought Orzsag’s nonsense, and the amount became a focus of attention as a bailout of European banks.

Case 2: CBO Whitehouse meeting. Earlier this week, the President meant with the Director of the CBO. According to Jake Tapper, there was a lot of pushback against the unprecedented nature of the meeting:

Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: “I noticed that the CBO director was sort of called down to the White House yesterday. It strikes me as somewhat akin as the owner of the team asking the umpires to come up to the owner’s box.”

McConnell said that “if the CBO is to have credibility, they’re the umpire. They’re not players in this game.”

CBO is tasked with providing “objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget.”

Case 3: Keith Hennessey puts it nicely, “CBO Kills the President’s Medicare Comission Proposal”. You see, the CBO found that Obama’s great plan to limit costs was to create a commission only saved $2b. One half of one percent of the total cost. So what happens? Orzsag goes after Elmendorff in all but name:

A final note is worth underscoring. As a former CBO director, I can attest that CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today’s analysis from CBO could feed that perception. For example, and without specifying precisely how the various modifications would work, CBO somehow concluded that the council could “eventually achieve annual savings equal to several percent of Medicare spending…[which] would amount to tens of billions of dollars per year after 2019.” Such savings are welcome (and rare!), but it is also the case that (for good reason) CBO has restricted itself to qualitative, not quantitative, analyses of long-term effects from legislative proposals.  In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.

What is going on is crystal clear. The CBO is not caving to extended political pressure. After weeks of Pelosi “scolding” and Baucus aides “expressing frustration” it has come to open attacks on the CBO, its director, and the institution’s integrity.

Well. I have to say, finally Barack Obama is bringing change I can believe in. Chicago-style change.

Cross-posted from The Next Right.

COMMENTS

  • redneck_hippie

    I also have grave concern over the decision to delay until Aug 15th the scheduled (Jul 15th) release of economic figures, in a transparent effort to hide bad results until a bill can be gotten through congress.

  • lukematthews

    “CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today?s analysis from CBO could feed that perception.” Orzag

    Why is it this administration seems to use the argument ‘it’s for your own good’ to do whatever. It would be in the Republicans best interest to cave into us. It would be in the CBO’s best interest to cook the books. These people are shameless hacks. Why would anyone believe a word they say.

    Thanks for the story.

  • muffin

    Two plus two equals whatever they want it to equal.

  • bobojake

    REJECT OBAMA AND HIS THUGS.

  • jonreagan

    If you don’t have the money, just pretend.

    Actually, your case #2 is pretty scary, in terms of undermining the independence of an office like the CBO. Should we gain back control of the House in 2010, much of this type of stuff could form the basis for an “Abuse of Power” article of impeachment. It’s the very type of stuff that was Nixon’s undoing in 1974.

    Also worth noting in connection with your synopsis was the White House’s announcement last week that this year’s Revised Budget Estimate—normally put out in July—has been delayed until mid-August. Essentially, this was Barack telling us that “the dog ate his homework”; clearly, Obama doesn’t want this number out until after a planned vote on his health care bill. The opposite of transparency: hide the numbers; don’t let the people see how bad things really are.

    • redneck_hippie

      but according to WaPo, this is de rigeur for transition year of a new administration. What do you make of it?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002277.html

      • jonreagan

        Yeah, I’ve seen that response as well, but am not buying it. These are the guys who promised no more “business as usual”, and new high standards of transparency. But more importantly, I think the Post story is comparing apples and oranges.

        First year of Clinton, as well as Bush’s innaugural year, were relatively quiet compared to what these clowns have been doing. Their first two months were spent ramming through a wasteful, poorly executed, $800 billion spending bill; bottom line, they were manipulating budget numbers 24 hours a day. If they can’t make a decent projection after all that number crunching, then they’re even more incompetent than I’d originally feared…..and that’s saying something.

        And I guess it’s precisely because they ARE trying to ram through huge, additional spending before the Aug. recess—-$$$ which were incomprehensible before this year—that they would have realized that delaying the CBO report would look like a bunch of crooks trying to pull a fast one. Or better yet, like someone trying to get a mortgage without proof of employment, W-2′s, etc. Of course, a lot of that’s gone on in recent years, and we all know how it turned out.

        • redneck_hippie

          that while trying to impose these changes practically sight unseen and overnight, it’s pretty unbelievalble they require another month before releasing the books. So, yeah, you’re right, I cry foul, too.

  • bk

    1) He manufactured budget “cuts” by basing them against no troop reductions in Iraq for the foreseeable future, which was known to be a lie.

    2) He didn’t count a quarter trillion in increased Medicare payments as increased Medicare payments because he said those were going to happen anyway and so even if they happened because of his plan they didn’t count against his plan.

    Being a budget person for Obama is kind of like that old joke where the boss calls you in and asks you a question…
    Q: What’s our bottom line look like?
    A: What do you want it to look like?

    If Obama can fire CEOs and AGs and whoever else he wants, and can bypass Congress whenever he wants, well then hell he can clean up the CBO. He can force in his own person to oversee it and just get reports from the CBO where it now stands for Czar of Budget Office. Voila! We’d have a balanced budget before you know it!

  • jarrod21

    n/t

  • Flagstaff

    the dweeb’s picture prominently displayed. His visage is perfectly suited to his job as Obama’s nerdy financial yes-man. He can’t possibly believe that he’s speaking the truth. He personifies the word, “toady.”

    I’d put his picture in if I knew how to do it.

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
  • Common_Cents