Health Law Costs Increase Triggers House Republican Inquiry... March 2, 2012 Bloomberg News

Health Law Cost Increase Triggers House Republican Inquiry

Friday, 02 Mar 2012 06:37 PM

A    A   |

• 7
  inShare

The Republican chairman of the U.S. House tax-writing committee questioned why Obama administration spending estimates for insurance subsidies under the health-care law rose by $111 billion from a year ago.
President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget request, released Feb. 13, projected that subsidies for low-income and working-class families would total $478 billion through 2021. The administration pegged the cost at $367 billion over the same period in its fiscal 2012 budget proposal.
The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Republican Dave Camp of Michigan, asked the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Kathleen Sebelius, to explain the change in a budget hearing Tuesday. Sebelius didn’t have an answer, saying the estimate appears in the Treasury Department’s budget. Camp followed up with a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today.
The increase “cannot be explained by legislative changes or new economic assumptions, and therefore must reflect substantial changes in underlying assumptions” about the way the subsidies would work, Camp wrote. He asked whether the administration believes insurance premiums would be more expensive than earlier predictions, or if more workers would lose coverage through their employers than expected.
Obama’s 2013 budget more than offsets the higher cost of insurance subsidies with lower spending on Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor. Medicaid is projected to spend $3.6 trillion, or $275 billion less than in 2012.
Insurance Subsidies
Republicans are seizing on the higher subsidies knowing that changes Congress made to the health-care law since it was enacted in 2010 also reduced Medicaid costs, said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. “They will say anything in their quest to put insurance companies back in charge,” he said in an e-mail.
The subsidies will be provided to uninsured people to buy individual policies in marketplaces called exchanges that begin operating in 2014. Medicaid and the exchange subsidies are related because people who seek insurance through the exchanges will be enrolled in Medicaid if they earn poverty-level wages.
About two-thirds of the increase in exchange subsidies is due to changes Congress made to the law, Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Congress passed a measure last year that would reduce eligibility for Medicaid and result in higher enrollment in subsidized private insurance policies sold through the exchanges, Camp said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Medicaid change would add $11 billion to the cost of subsidies through 2021, Camp said.

© Copyright 2012 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To STUFF ObamaCare Down Our Throats by Doug Book Feb. 28, 2012

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK 10 COMMENTS

inShare9

In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.”

In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that  through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.”  (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.”

Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.

In 1995 for example, the government claimed before the Supreme Court that authority supporting the federal law against possession of a gun within 1000’ of a school was derived from theCommerce Clause, arguing that school violence would impact negatively on insurance rates and limit travel to an area considered unsafe, both having an effect on commerce!  On this occasion at least,  the Court did not buy into the governments strained assertions.

Yet it is upon the powers wielded by Congress under the Commerce Clause that Barack Hussein Obama is depending for a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–ObamaCare. The Department of Justice will argue that the federal government has the authority to force American citizens to purchase healthcare coverage mandated by ObamaCare and apply a penalty to those who do not because it has the power to regulate commerce. And the sale and purchase of insurance are commerce.

In response to the government’s assertions, the Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an Amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the Supreme Court pertaining to the ObamaCare-related, “Health and Human Services v Florida” case. But rather than claim the Commerce Clause does not provide the authority required to support Obama’s assault on the liberty of the American people, Liberty Legal argues that the Court should recognize and correct the error made by the 1942 Court and overturn the Wickard v Filburn decision.

For as Liberty Legal rightly points out, “Wickard was a direct cause of exponential growth in federal spending, decreased faith in Congress, shocking growth in federal regulations and loss of freedom in America..”

Oral arguments pertaining to ObamaCare will begin on March 26^th and continue for a record 3 days. We already know how 4 members of the Court will decide, including Justice Kagan who reveals the left’s well-known class and respect for rules of proper behavior by her refusal to recuse herself from the case even though she literally helped pass the legislation!

It will be upon the honor of the remaining 5 members of the Court that the liberty of the American public will depend.

Please see the excellent work done on behalf of the American people by the Liberty Legal Foundation at: http://libertylegalfoundation.org/

President Obama's 2013 Budget Draws Fire From Agriculture Posted by Cowboy Byte Feb. 15, 2012

Obama budget draws fire from agriculture

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Cowboy Byte

Agriculture funding is not getting a fair shake in the President’s proposed 2013 budget, according to U.S. farm proponents. In the budget released Monday, President Obama proposed slashing agriculture subsidies by $32 billion over the next decade, just as Congress is getting set to create the new U.S. 2012 Farm Bill.

Obama’s plan includes eliminating the $5 billion a year in direct payment to farmers, an idea that has support among U.S. lawmakers, according to Reuters. In negotiations last fall, U.S. Senate and House agriculture committees identified $23 billion in proposed savings over 10 years.

Obama’s proposed 2013 budget is seen by some as unsupportive to agriculture- one of the top performing sectors in a struggling U.S. economy. “The President’s budget demonstrates that neither rural America nor fiscal discipline is a priority for this administration,” said Rep. Frank Lucas, R Okla., Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. “Raising taxes on small businesses and ignoring the real drivers of trillion dollar deficits is a failure of leadership.”

11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Ruled Obama Care Unconstitutional.... Politico News by Jennifer Haberkorn Aug. 12, 2011

Court says mandate unconstitutional By: Jennifer Haberkorn August 12, 2011 01:29 PM EDT

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law's requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law. The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general — and the National Federation of Independent Business. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal. The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton. The panel partially upheld a ruling issued in January by Judge Roger Vinson, who struck down the entire health reform law. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the legislation can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional. The panel also said that the law's expansion of Medicaid is constitutional, ruling against the states.  The Department of Justice won't say yet whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the decision.  The majority of the panel said they couldn't uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress's powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits. Vinson cited this broccoli argument in his sweeping ruling striking down the entire law. "We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers," Dubina and Hull wrote in an expansive, 200-page ruling. "'Uniqueness' is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision." The federal government argued that the law  regulates only how people obtain health care — something all Americans will need at some point in their lives. They say the uniqueness of the market makes health care different than broccoli or gym purchases. "People are seeking this good already," Neal Katyal, the acting solicitor general, said during oral arguments. "It's about the failure to pay, not the failure to buy." During oral arguments in Atlanta in June, the panel spent a significant amount of time discussing whether the mandate is "severable" from the rest of the law. Hull in particular asked the federal government three times where the line should be. The ruling comes six weeks after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit, giving the health law a 1-1 record at the circuit level. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard two related cases in May, has not issued its rulings yet. The White House downplayed the ruling, pointing to the 6th Circuit and lower courts that have upheld the law. "There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional," Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior adviser, wrote in a White House blog post. "Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional." The split rulings make the suit a strong contender to be taken up by the Supreme Court in the fall term. The Thomas More Law Center, which lost the 6th Circuit ruling, has already filed its appeal. In this case, the federal government will have 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — in a process called certiorari — or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the ruling. "I can't think of any time a federal law was struck down — let alone a federal law of this scope — that the United States sought 'certiorari' and the cert was denied," said Brad Joondeph, a University of Santa Clara law professor who follows the health law cases atacalitigationblog.blogspot.com. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who inherited the lawsuit from her predecessor, Bill McCollum, praised the ruling. "Today we have prevailed in preventing Congress from infringing on the individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution," she said in a statement. Republican presidential candidates, who argue the mandate is unconstitutional, are already praising the ruling. Rep. Michele Bachmann told reporters in Iowa that she had "helped to make that argument about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate." "Effectively giving a national voice to those arguments — the court has listened to those arguments," Bachmann said. Marcus, who wrote the dissent, railed against the decision, calling it "wooden, formalistic and myopic." He said that Congress has shown time and again that it has power over the national health care markets, especially in its ability to set prices under Medicare, its regulatory authority over insurers and drugmakers and its ability to issue rules that cut across both how care is delivered and covered. "Both the congressional intent to link the two and the empirical relation between the purchase of health insurance and the consumption of health care services are clear," Marcus wrote. The ruling is likely to worry not only supporters of the health law but also the insurance industry. The panel said all of the rest of the law — including its ban on insurers denying patients because of pre-existing conditions — can stand. Insurers — and the federal government — have argued that the two must be tied together. Insurers in particular have said that premiums would have to increase if they were required to accept everyone without the mandate. "Throughout the health care reform debate there was broad agreement that enacting guarantee issue and community rating would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans. "States that have implemented these laws without covering everyone have seen a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured." Matt DoBias contributed to this report.

© 2011 POLITICO LLC

US Rating Cut by S&P for first time on Deficit Reduction Plan.. Aug 5, 2011.

US Rating Cut by S&P for First Time on Deficit Reduction Pact

Friday, 05 Aug 2011 08:49 PM

Share:

More . . .

A A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

The U.S. had its AAA credit rating downgraded for the first time by Standard & Poor's on concern spending cuts agreed on by lawmakers to raise the nation's borrowing limit won't be enough to reduce record deficits.

S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a "credible" plan to lower deficits even if the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted. The U.S. was awarded the top credit ranking by New York-based S&P in 1941. It kept the outlook at "negative."

'The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement today.

Demand for Treasuries has surged even with the specter of a downgrade as investors saw few alternatives to the traditional refuge during times of risk as concern increased global growth is slowing and Europe's sovereign debt crisis is spreading. The action could still hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation's borrowing costs by $100 billion a year.

Moody's, Fitch

"It's a reflection of the fact that we haven't done enough to get our fiscal house in the order," Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the downgrade. "Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come."
___________________________________________________________

'You Opened My Eyes to the Catastrophic Enormity of This Financial Debacle'
Debt ceiling 'medicine will become the poison,' according to famed economist. Brace for economic meltdown. Watch the Aftershock Survival Summit Now, See the Evidence.

_____________________________________________________________

Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings on Aug. 2, the day President Barack Obama signed a bill that ended the debt-ceiling impasse that pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. Moody's and Fitch also said that downgrades were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.

The measure raised the nation's debt ceiling until 2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.

S&P put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing its AAA rating unless lawmakers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. S&P indicated last month that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the rating.

'Grand Bargain'

"A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.," John Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign rating committee, said in a video interview distributed by the ratings firm on July 28.

Obama has said a rating cut may hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. An increase in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan said in a report, citing Federal Reserve research and data.

"The hope is that we could keep Treasuries pure, limited to interest rate risk," Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the announcement. "The minute you start downgrading away from AAA, you take small steps toward credit risk and that is something any country would like to avoid."

Relative Yields

Treasury yields average about 0.70 percentage point less than the rest of the world's sovereign debt markets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. The difference has expanded from 0.15 percentage point in January.

Investors from China to the U.K. are lending money to the U.S. government for a decade at the lowest rates of the year. For many of them, there are few alternatives outside the U.S., no matter what its credit rating.

"Yields are low in the face of a downgrade because there is nowhere else for people to go if they don't buy Treasuries because they want to be in safe dollar assets," Carl Lantz, head of interest-rate strategy at Credit Suisse Group AG, one of 20 primary dealers that trade directly with the Federal Reserve, said before the announcement.

Ten-year Treasury yields fell to as low as 2.33 percent in New York, the least since October.

Bond Dealers

The committee of bond dealers and investors that advises the U.S. Treasury said the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency "appears to be slipping" in quarterly feedback presented to the government on Aug. 3. The U.S. currency's portion of global currency reserves dropped to 60.7 percent in the period ended March 31, from a peak of 72.7 percent in 2001, International Monetary Fund data show.

"The idea of a reserve currency is that it is built on strength, not typically that it is 'best among poor choices'," page 35 of the presentation made by one member of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Pimco. "The fact that there are not currently viable alternatives to the U.S. dollar is a hollow victory and perhaps portends a deteriorating fate."

Members of the TBAC, as the committee is known, which met Aug. 2 in Washington, also discussed the implications of a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. "None of the members thought that a downgrade was imminent," according to minutes of the meeting released by the Treasury.

A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation's borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 basis points to 70 basis points over the "medium term," JPMorgan's Terry Belton said on a July 26 conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The U.S. spent $414 billion on interest expense in fiscal 2010, or 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, according to Treasury Department data.

"That impact on Treasury rates is significant," Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call. "That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and that's money being taken away from other goods and services."

© Copyright 2011 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: US Rating Cut by S&P for First Time on Deficit Reduction Pact
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

We've Been Played for Saps, Folks; Boehner Bill Will Become Reid Bill (Rush Limbaugh Transcript) July 28, 2011

We've Been Played for Saps, Folks: Boehner Bill Will Become Reid Bill

July 28, 2011

Listen To It! WMP | Flash Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I think we've been played for a bunch of saps, I mean not us exclusively, I just mean the whole country, the Republican Party, ruling class. I'll explain as uncomfortable as it is and as grading as it is, I'll explain as the program unfolds it's great to have you here as always telephone number if you want to be on the program. 800-282-2882. The e-mail address ElRushbo@eibnet.com. Where are we on the debt deal? I suspect that most of the people, and this is what a lot of people are relying on, "Just finish it!" A lot of people are sick and tired of hearing about it, let's move on to something else. "I'm tired of talking about it. Can't we do something that's fun? What the hell is going on?" I understand the sentiment. Yesterday or last night the Republican leadership succeeded in getting Allen West to flip and vote for the Boehner plan or to commit to it. The same thing with Paul Ryan, and I've had a lot of e-mails: "What's Allen West doing? I can't believe Allen West, of all people." These Democrats, folks, you have to understand who we're dealing with here. This whole thing with Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz going on the House floor and accusing West of wanting to cut Medicare and Social Security and all that in the south Florida district, and you remember the contretemps that begin with West responding to it and so forth. They have put his re-election into play and, of course, they've got the media on their side down here in south Florida. So all over the media is the allegation that Allen West wants to do all this damage to senior citizens and so forth so that's how his vote gets -- I'm guessing. I haven't spoken to him. But I think that's a large part of it. Now, as we all know the Boehner bill is not ideal. It's another one of these eight hundred, nine hundred, I don't even think it gets to a trillion, but let's say it does, a trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years, the debt limit raised immediately so the spending occurs immediately, but it re-invites the debt limit debate all over again in a few short few months and in fact there is from the Daily Caller today a story that says the GOP is stealing Christmas. The Democrats are going back to the Gingrich that stole Christmas theme from the Clinton days. And here's the story from the Daily Caller: "GOP Aims to Gut Christmas, White House Alleges -- House Speaker and national grinch John Boehner is planning to spoil Christmas, White House officials are claiming, as they try to head off passage of Boehner's two-stage debt ceiling bill." They don't want to head off passage of the Boehner bill. They want the Boehner bill to pass in the house. There's a trap essentially that's being set, and I noticed that there's an AP story, and way down at the AP story: "In fact, Boehner's plan has enough in common with Reid's -- including the establishment of a special congressional panel to recommend additional spending cuts this fall -- that Reid hinted a compromise could be easy to snap together," between his nonexistent bill and the Boehner bill. What does that mean? What it means is that over in the Senate Reid really doesn't have a bill. He's got an idea, but he doesn't have a bill. And what he's put forth as an idea hasn't gotten all that much support. But here comes, let's say the House, and Boehner doesn't have the votes in the House yet according to Politico. And this is key. That was as of 9:30 this morning and they're going to be working the Republican caucus all day long before the vote tonight. But, as of now, Boehner doesn't have the votes for his bill. But let's assume he gets the votes. The Boehner bill then goes to the Senate where it's dead on arrival. There are 58 senators that are going to vote against it, by design. However, they've got a bill over there now. So Dingy Harry can take the Boehner bill and tweak it and rewrite it, make additions to it, take some things out of it, play with it however he wants, and get enough votes from Democrats since it becomes the Reid bill, and then it gets sent back to Boehner in the House looking nothing like his bill, but the rationale for passing the Boehner bill in the House is we've got to do this, the time is up, we're not going to get blamed. So if Reid monkeys around with the bill that he gets from Boehner, and it passes in the Senate, with whatever changes that are not favorable to us, of course, they throw it back in Boehner's lap, and then the pressure is going to be back on Boehner. Okay, do you sign the Reid bill? Do you pass it? Do you get your guys to vote for it and send it to Obama, basically a Democrat bill. That is what a lot of people -- and I sign on to the theory, too -- this is one of the traps that's being set. The Boehner bill is essentially being used to be a foundation for a nonexistent as of yet Reid bill. And thereby the Boehner bill becomes the Reid bill, therefore Democrat bill all in the absence of an Obama plan. No Obama plan at all in this.

There's no Obama bill. There's nothing set down on paper. So the Reid bill will become the Obama bill. The Boehner plan will become the Obama plan. I think that's the trap. And, of course, the establishment, Republicans are all gung ho. "Gotta get this done. It's the best we can get." Because they're telling themselves there aren't any tax increases in it, and there aren't. There aren't any tax increases in the Boehner bill. And there are spending cuts and there are caps, but what happens when that goes over to the Senate and Reid says, "You know what, I like some of this and I don't like that. Let's take some of this out and put some of this in," and gets his votes for it and the Boehner bill becomes something unrecognizable, then goes back to the House, what are they going to do? They've already passed the Boehner bill under the guise that we can't wait any longer, that AAA credit rating is in jeopardy, all this rotgut BS. So that, essentially, is where things stand. Now, back to this Daily Caller story. The one thing in the Boehner bill, and Democrats don't like this, is that the debt ceiling doesn't get raised enough to get us through the 2012 election. In other words, the Boehner bill is not a full-fledged Obama Reelection Lifeline Bill. But that's what Reid wants to turn it into. Now they're attacking that aspect of the Boehner bill by saying that the Republicans want to destroy Christmas. "House Speaker and national grinch John Boehner is planing [sic] to spoil Christmas, White House officials are claiming, as they try to head off passage of Boehner's two-stage debt ceiling bill. "'Happy Holidays[,] America: Boehner plan would have the debt ceiling all over again during the holiday season, which is critical for the economy,' White House deputy spokesman Dan Pfeiffer declared today at 9.50 a.m." Now, the Boehner bill would carry us through next March or April -- or at least, the last time the Speaker spoke to us that's what he told us, that there would be enough of an increase in the debt ceiling to get us through the spring. "White House political adviser David Plouffe made the same claim about Christmas almost one hour earlier when MSNBC's [F.] Chuck Todd quizzed him about the White House's opposition to Boehner's two-stage debt ceiling proposal. ... "White House spokesman Jay Carney repeated the same theme at his midday press conference. A two-stage plan that extends the debt ceiling only until 'the holiday season,' he said, 'would almost certainly require almost all of us to go through this again at the end of the year, the most important economic season of the country.'" Democrats are pulling out all rhetorical stops. Pelosi said this morning, "What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today." That's Pelosi. The CBO has scored both of these bills in such a way as to make it seem like there's very little difference between them, spending cut-wise, the Reid and Boehner bills. There are real differences, but we're supposed to just look at the numbers and say, "Oh, they're that close? Then let's just split the difference." When is the last time you heard that the Boehner bill was very close to the Reid bill? I've never heard that until today -- and they're not close! The Reid bill counts all kinds of "savings" from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all kinds of mumbo jumbo in there that Boehner's bill doesn't have. What is such a victory in there being no tax increases in the Reid debt ceiling deal? When in the history of the country has there ever been a tax increase included in the debt ceiling increase? We've mentioned this before: No debt ceiling increase bill has ever had a tax increase in it, yet this is being heralded as something unprecedented. It's not. It's common. There's never a tax increase in a debt ceiling bill. There could be in this one, though, because the Boehner bill sets up this commission of unnamed members. They could do whatever they want. It's claimed that they can't do tax increases, but nothing's going to stop them if they want to. So the question that we have to ask is: Where is Republican victory in the Reid bill? Where is the victory in there being no tax increases in the Reid debt ceiling deal, because there never have been. So that's where we are (at least that's where I think we are) and they are really hustling and they are twisting arms on the Republican side. They're using phrases like, "Get your ass in line." They are saying, "Don't let ideological purity stand in the way." Boehner said the same thing before the TARP vote. He said the exact same thing. He wasn't Speaker then but before the TARP vote in 2000 he said, "It's crucial. We're at a pressure point in the country where we can't let ideological purity stand in the right thing to do." They're saying the same thing now to the Republican freshmen in the House. "You can't let ideological purity stand in the way of doing the right thing. We've got to do this now," and their reasoning basically, when you boil it all down, is, "We've got to do something, no matter what it is, so we don't get blamed for not doing anything." So that's where we are as I, El Rushbo, see it. I'd love to be wrong. I love being right, as you well know, but I would love to be wrong. There are no real spending cuts in either bill. We went through that yesterday the baseline and all that. There are no real cuts, and certainly not at all in the Reid bill. So we shall see.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: My gosh, this is really tough for me -- and I'm not complaining for you. I'm just sharing. If the Boehner bill is stopped, Harry Reid is stopped. If the Boehner bill passes, then essentially the Harry Reid bill is going to take the place of the Boehner bill. The Boehner bill will become the Harry Reid bill. Now, little old me -- sitting here in south Florida, growing up in Missouri, not part of any establishment -- looks at the establishment and I think that they have it all wrong. This deal, if after all of this talk about what a crisis point we are at, is the best that can be done essentially we will be institutionalizing the debt situation. The establishment that this is the new normal will make it $2.5 trillion harder to undo what will be done from this deal. That's what Reid's spending is. Reid's bill is $2.5 trillion of spending. That's the debt limit increase in the Reid bill. So it takes us from 14.3 up to 16.8. So that becomes the new normal. Now, if we control all three branches, all three branches will have to deal with almost $17 trillion in immediate debt rather than trillions less, and the political situation is not going to be any better in dealing with it. Let's just advance forward and let's say we do win the Senate and we do win the presidency in 2012, but we've added $2.5 trillion in debt between now and then. The political situation is not going to be any better in terms of dealing with the debt. Plus we're going to have to deal with entitlements as well. None of this does. The Reid bill doesn't deal with entitlements and the Boehner bill doesn't deal with entitlements, and that's where the real hard work is going to be, and so we're kicking that can down the road. The Republicans want a deal now to get it off their plate. They want to be able to say that they did the best they could. "We've taken a good first step." That's what they want, and they want also to have it said that they compromised. There's magic in that word in Washington and they're salivating over the opportunity to be called great compromisers. Politico today, as of 9:43 this morning: "Speaker John Boehner told lawmakers Thursday that Republicans don't yet have the votes to pass the package, but predicted his leadership team would get the legislation across the finish line this evening. "'We do not have the votes yet,' Boehner told a closed meeting of House Republicans Thursday morning... 'But today is the day. We're going to get it passed.' ... Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) also said Boehner admitted not being at 217 votes yet -- the minimum number of votes needed to pass the House. 'I don't think we're there yet, but I think we will be,' said Chabot, who is backing the Boehner plan." They're planning an evening vote on Boehner's package to lift the debt ceiling after the financial markets close this afternoon in New York. Now, Politico says here Republican "leaders feel momentum has turned in their direction after the Congressional Budget Office released new estimates showing the Boehner plan reduces the deficit by more than the bill raises the debt limit." You know we're not even talking a trillion dollars here from the current baseline? Remember yesterday (there's always so much to remember): If you're just joining us today, if you were not here yesterday, get this: If the Boehner bill was simply a freeze, not one dime spent next year more than is spent this year -- we don't increase spending a dime -- the congressional budget office would score that as a $9.5 trillion cut over 10 years because $9.5 trillion is built into the baseline from which the federal budget is built every year. That's how out of whack this is. If we don't spend a dime, the CBO would come out and claim that Boehner is cutting spending $9.5 trillion, when he's not. There's no cut in a freeze. There's only a cut if you are going to pretend that you're going to spend nearly $10 trillion the next 10 years -- which, of course, it's going to be more than that. The annual budget's over that easily.

The guys at Red State, reading stuff this morning, and they found an interesting passage in Mike Allen's Playbook in The Politico. Mike Allen has this thing every morning. It's sort of a take-off of what the Hotline does, a little Dot, Dot, Dot column on all that's going on in Washington, politically; what's supposed to happen today and what happened last night and all kinds of things. It's just the political junkie's delight. There's this little package, a quote from an unnamed top Democrat. "The press will obsess about today's House vote on the Boehner two-step bill, but at best it is an exercise in political machismo. At worst it's the beginning of the most irresponsible act in congressional history, because the House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. "At least 58 senators are on record saying they will not support the Boehner bill. That's worse than the Ryan bill. That's worse than Cut, Cap and Balance. So once the vote is over, Speaker Boehner needs to begin immediately working on a way out of the mess Cantor created." That's what this top Democrat is saying. "If he doesn't, we could be in big trouble. There are dozens of possible compromises. He just has to take one. Reid, McConnell and the White House have plenty of options. The question is: 'Will he choose compromise for the sake of the country or political grandstanding for the sake of his caucus.'" So what they're talking about here is the Democrats are trying to say that what Boehner is doing is irresponsible. He's going to send a bill up to the Senate that he knows doesn't have a chance, and I can tell you their thinking behind that. Their thinking behind that -- and you tell me if you think this makes sense. The Republican thinking is, "We got a bill, the Boehner bill, the Boehner two-step. We send it up there and the Senate votes it down, it's their problem. We had a bill! We came up with deficit reduction! We expanded the debt ceiling. No new taxes. The Senate shot it down. Therefore, the ball's in the Democrats court and it's their problem." That's the thinking. This Democrat is saying that's the most irresponsible act in congressional history. Of course, the Democrat wants something that Boehner would send something over that Harry Reid and the Democrats would vote for, but read this very carefully. The Democrat is saying what I just told you. Boehner's going to need to begin immediately working on a way out of the mess because it's still going to be his mess, according to the Democrats. They're going to say, "The sent us something that we wouldn't possibly pass. He's trying to make us look like the obstructionist, but he knows we wouldn't vote for this, so why did he send it to us? So we're going to monkey around with it, we're going to send it back to him, and we're going to put the compromise onus back on him again." So the thinking is the Democrats think they can get away after Boehner and the Republicans might think they've won the day on compromise. The Democrats say, "Oh no you haven't! You've sent us something we can't possibly vote for. "Here. We're going to send it back to you with some changes we're going to make in it, and it's going to be up to you, Mr. Boehner, to begin immediately working on a way out of this mess -- and if you don't, we could be in big trouble." Then Reid, McConnell, and the White House have plenty of options. Here goes monkying around with the Boehner bill to turn it into something that the Senate will vote for, and it goes back to Boehner and then the question: "Will he choose compromise for the sake of the country or...?" In other words: "Will Boehner agree to the changes the Senate makes to his bill, or not?" and if he doesn't, the problem then becomes, "Republicans refuse to compromise," which is what the Democrats want all along. Meanwhile, the Republicans think that by dumping this thing in Reid's lap, the Democrats are going to end up looking like they don't compromise. The Democrats are a step or two ahead here. That is, if they're not all on the same page and just playing us for saps anyway. However, as Red State points out here: "All the Republicans keep telling us that this is the best they can hope for," that the Boehner two-step is the best they can hope for. That's what they keep telling us: "We've got to do it now. We've got the best we can possibly get." So how is it the best they can hope for when it is going to get less votes in the House and Senate than either Paul Ryan's plan or Cut, Cap and Balance. They're going backwards on this.