Dems' Health Plan Half As Costly As Bush Tax Cuts: Report

The Democrats' health care plan costs half as much as the two major tax cuts pushed by the George W. Bush administration, according to a report issued Tuesday.

Enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Bush tax cuts are projected to cost about $2.1 trillion in lost revenue in the 10 years since they were first passed, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington, D.C. About $979 billion of that would have come from the richest five percent of taxpayers.

By comparison, the health care plan advocated by House Democrats is projected to cost about $1 trillion through its first decade (2010-2019), according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Bush tax cuts tally does not include the additional interest payments on the national debt made necessary by the deficit-financed cuts, the report noted. That figure bumps up the total cost of the tax cuts to about $2.48 trillion.

"Many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is 'too costly' are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts," the report notes. "Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities."

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah has criticized the plan's projected costs, as has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

"Throughout this debate, the administration's central argument has been that America needs health care reform for the sake of the economy," McConnell said in June. "Yet according to independent estimates, every health care proposal Democrats on Capitol Hill have offered would only hurt the economy."

Hatch said something similar last month.

"Unfortunately, the path we are taking in Washington right now is to simply spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to further expand the role of the federal government," he said.

Both voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

The conservative Heritage Foundation argues the Bush tax cuts spurred positive economic activity. But as a January report in The Washington Post notes, "President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges."

Comments

[mamacat]

10:35 PM on 09/10/2009

Countering hyberbole and outright lies with facts.
What will the Democrats try to do next? Where will it all end? Next, are they going to try to convince us that 2 + 2 = 4? I for one stand on my constitutional right to be dumb and ignorant, and refuse to listen to any and all attempts to use facts and logic in any discussions. Furthermore, I will hold up signs during the president's speech, and interrupt him with screems from the bleechers. That will show those pesky Northerners! Long live the South!

[liberal user]

05:05 PM on 09/10/2009

Bring back the Glass Stegal Act to promote fair competition and eradicate monopolies and too big to fail conglomerates.

Do not allow foreign owned multinationals to own too much American real estate or stock in any individual American manufacturer or corporation.

good articles 4 for slow news day: http://www.iamned.com

[jsgaetano]

05:42 PM on 09/10/2009

And don't forget about that Sherman Anti-Trust Act which conservatives hate so much.

[rabb046]

02:57 PM on 09/10/2009

"Well the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting drunk".
- Paul Westerberg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHMwrDEqso

[jsgaetano]

02:35 PM on 09/10/2009

So in other words, according to conservatives, it's ok to go into multi-trillion dollar deficit spending in order to give tax breaks to the top 5%... but it's NOT ok to anything at all about the exponentially growing costs of health care.

"Fiscal Conservatives".

[judiNJ]

12:31 PM on 09/10/2009

Hey, that is great. The tax cuts for the wealthy will sunset in 2011 so that will go to the bottom line, unless all you Republicans would try to keep tax cuts for Wall Street insiders instead of health care for middle class folks an a balanced budget.

[CelticMajic]

11:55 AM on 09/10/2009

We have all heard dems cry loud and long about evil tax cuts. Did these great Americans send more than what the tax tables said they should pay? Why not? The government would have taken it. If tax cuts are so evil why oh why did not they pony up more?

[jsgaetano]

02:37 PM on 09/10/2009

If tax cuts are so good, why did the Second Great Depression hit a few months before Bush left office?

[CelticMajic]

03:52 PM on 09/10/2009

excellent, you completely avoided the question. Nice tactic.

[Mike Hamilton]

03:23 PM on 09/13/2009

Absurd. Without a system in place for allocating all these extra tax dollars you're proposing rich democrats send to the IRS, what does the money get spent on? Furthermore, it's fairly asinine to ask why, if you oppose tax cuts, do you not "tax yourself" more? This is analogous to asking: Why, if you think you're overpaid at your job, do you not voluntarily work overtime for no pay? Why, if you're allowed a certain number of sick days at work, do you not use them all up even in perfect health? Policy and ta brackets will not be changed based on generosity; they will be changed (or not) based on sound logic and financial arguments. If every "rich democrat" gave an extra $10k in taxes, what effect do you think that would have on national policy regarding taxes?

[breakingpoint]

07:58 PM on 09/09/2009

"The Democrats' health care plan costs half as much as the two major tax cuts pushed by the George W. Bush administration"

The wealthy are unpatriotic - they want protection and production and to make gobs of money, but they don't want their fellow citizens to benefit with dignity

[connorin]

10:29 AM on 09/10/2009

I have already responded to this.

The Bush tax cuts led to record tax revenues for our country. Why do you people always believe that people keeping THEIR OWN MONEY is a cost?

[jsgaetano]

02:39 PM on 09/10/2009

If it's their own money, then they can move to Somolia and take their conservative ideology with them.

Then they can stop sponging up our Socialist water supply, and using our Socialist roads, and our Socialist internet, and our Socialist freedoms guarded by our Socialist armed forces.

[Peets101]

07:05 PM on 09/09/2009

I am baffled by the number of comments defending the wealthy. With their great resources, they don't need to be defended. In fact, those resources are what makes it so difficult to close the gap. The wealthy have power and they have connections to other powerful people. They get favorable laws, stock tips, sweetheart contracts, jobs for their relatives and all the other things which keep them in power and keep making their assets growing - things which those out of power can never have, no matter how hard they work and no matter how well they do in school. Obama is an outsider to the club because he is black and comes from a poor family with no connections. So, he is called arrogant and uppity and receives death threats every day. I think Bill Clinton was disliked for similar reasons - not part of the "club".

[Flavor]

07:11 PM on 09/09/2009

Although Peets101, it's a lot of wealthy it's more of us than them and we can voice our opinion and (stand). It's time that (we) the people take that stand.

[connorin]

10:31 AM on 09/10/2009

The people have been standing up...to their congression reps the past month and all you guys do is denounce them

[jsgaetano]

02:42 PM on 09/10/2009

The top income tax bracket in the '80s was 50%. And yet, amazingly enough, there were STILL people who were foolish enough to become wealthy.

I'm willing to bet that even if we raise their taxes by 10-20%, people might still foolishly find reasons to become wealthy, and still might foolishly find value in the socialist opportunities and socialist freedoms provided by our socialist armed forces.

[Flavor]

05:55 PM on 09/09/2009

Today, while leaving work I tuned in on an A.M. station that I sometime listen to, the host was talking about healthcare of course he and another co-host was and is against it, he said that when he was a child his father and mother did not rush him to the hospital for every little bruise he got, or even a cut, I said okay now where is he going with this. He began to say that his parents did take he and his siblings to the doctor if it was something major and they knew that they would have to pay out of pocket and that you can't just give everybody healthcare in other words a free ride. He also stated that there is not one hospital that can deny you if there is an emergency. They have to take you I said, okay to myself but who can out of pocket pay for a 75,000 dollor emergency surgery of a tumor lodge in your abdomin, and yes the payment you owe will come on time and if you can't pay trust me you credit will be bad also I don't know anybody who said they would take their child to the doctor just for a cut, or a bruise maybe a fall from playing baseball ect... Also, when he was a kid in the early forties they could not afford to take the children to the hospital, that alone would make me say yes to healthcare.

[freddiefreeloader]

04:21 PM on 09/09/2009

This is exactly the kind of stuff the President needs to explain to the American people, They can understand it.

[kimleehan]

04:03 PM on 09/09/2009

The Government should give healthy tax cuts to American businesses that manufacture their merchandise here in the U.S.A.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:26 PM on 09/09/2009

They should also fine American companies who use sweatshop labor abroad.

[sonoffestus]

12:56 PM on 09/10/2009

Walmart and Nike wouldn't stand for it.

[liberal user]

04:03 PM on 09/09/2009

It seems our efforts to achieve actual results with regards to reform in the banking & finance sectors are futile. In addition, the disconnect between reality and wall street keeps widening. The situation is frustrating.
hat tip: to http://www.iamned.com

[itsjustanillusion]

03:46 PM on 09/09/2009

What's worst they look down upon the very people who keep them rich as if they are doing the us a favor. Yeah, sure the rich are providers of goods and services and jobs, however, its in their best interest to have a strong, healthy, and happy workforce. What is wrong with paying more in taxes because you earn more? Can they comprehend the benefits of doing so, they'll be paying into stronger, happier, healthier employees as well as a stronger corporation. And guess what? They'll still be rich. its unfortunate that these people cannot see past their greed and gluttony to look at the bigger picture.

Everything that this planet has to offer we have to share whether we like it or not. Once its gone, its gone to all. Its in the best interest of every living breathing human being to look out for each other. Without each other we have nothing and we are nothing. It takes many hands to build, create and maintain.

And the rich will sit at their gold plated desks watching their workforce drop like flies because they are too greedy to share.

[connorin]

10:32 AM on 09/10/2009

Do you understand the law of diminishing returns at all?

[jsgaetano]

02:45 PM on 09/10/2009

Yeah. Tax cuts have long ago reached the point of diminishing returns... yet conservatives still delude themselves that tax cuts are the answer to all problems.

Huge forest fire? Cut taxes! Tornado? Cut taxes! Swine flu? Cut taxes! A Second Great Depression caused by the failed economic theories of conservatives? Cut taxes!

[mamacat]

05:35 PM on 09/10/2009

Well said. Trickle down economics is a sham.

[Jlong]

03:34 PM on 09/09/2009

Also lost on the Repubs - both of these tax cuts were passed with the Reconciliation process.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:28 PM on 09/09/2009

Really. That's good to know. That is some golden ammunition.

[c2morow]

03:30 PM on 09/09/2009

The author of this article brings up an excellent point. Points that most of us that visit HP understand. However, the far right do not read these posts (or any posts for that matter, they get their news from TV), so sometimes I wonder about the impact it truly has on those that really need to read and understand this point. My point being, it would be nice if some of these informative articles could make it to MSM and get out there in front of those that really need to see/hear it and if nothing else, make them question their own sources and facts. Of course, I also realize that this is asking alot of some of the far right fringe...

[ReedYoung]

04:12 PM on 09/09/2009

Our Liberal members of Congress should mention this kind of thing more often when they're on the teevee.

[connorin]

10:37 AM on 09/10/2009

If you define anyone who is republican as far right, does that mean I have define anyone who is democrat as far left? So there is no middle anymore?

Next point...if the republicans that come here and comment aren't reading the posts why do they refernce information in the post?

If we only gewt our news from TV, why are we here and why do we visit so many sites from both sides of the aisle?

The republicans that come here shoot articles like this down easliy...anyone on MSM that allows someone from the right side of the aisle would too and laugh at the host.