Time to use our heads in evaluating Obama’s deficit and health care ‘reform’ bills

As congressional leaders head home for the Thanksgiving break, I hope every one of them holds in-person town hall meetings with people on the health care 'reform' bills and the deficit.

And, I hope Americans everywhere will think through for themselves the dangers we now face. Certainly the readers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal will get a balanced presentation of the issues. And I believe anyone who takes the time to contemplate the deficit ramifications of the health care "reform" bills will tell their elected representatives one thing, if given the chance: "If you vote for more debt, you should have your head examined."

And there is no question that both bills on health care "reform" now under consideration are absolute budget busters.

That's not just my conclusion.

Washington Post columnist David S. Broder made that very point in a column over the weekend titled "A budget-buster in the making".

"While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one (Sen. Harry) Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.

"Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: 'The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases.'"

"Here's another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 'While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like.'

"These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored "budget gimmicks" that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.

"Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.

"Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion."

You can read Broder's column in its entirety here. And, I am sure you will find many other resources in the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the days go by.

Whatever you do, don't buy into the party line. Think for yourselves on this. Can it possibly be true, as Sen. Reid says, that his bill gives 31 million more Americans health care benefits and yet still reduces the deficit? I sincerely doubt it. So do the experts. You decide and let your congressional leader know what you think.

For me, we simply cannot keep piling on to the debt. The Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress have simply gone too far. They have tripled our budget in 300 days. The red ink must stop. As it is, it is going to take years to return us to fiscal responsibility, even if the economy returns to something better than the current recessionary levels.

Write your congressional leaders. Go to one or more of their town hall meetings. If they won't hold in-person town hall meetings, demand them.

If you don't get anywhere. Let me know. Maybe I can help. My e-mail is sherm@lvrj.com and I read every one.