More Lies From The Thieves In D.C.

As everyone by now knows, I’m pretty much fed up with the lies and misdirection coming from every nook and cranny in Washington. As our elected representatives forgo any semblance of transparency in their attempt to keep power and implement their Anti-American agenda the Bull gets deeper and deeper. I and others have tried to point out in the past the blatant manipulation of information for political survival. As we all know, the Imbicile in the White House House touts his many reforms and policies as “Successes” Using lying methods worthy of praise from the likes of Goebells and most Marxist lying sacks of shit, he proudly and openly screws over the American public. Anything it takes to save his “royal”ass (that’s satire for you libbies out there) he throws out there, fact or fiction. Example: The race card? Why not if it accomplishes his end result? And on it goes.

I’ve reprinted 2 columns I found today, one from Bruce McQuain and one from Rob Port. Well researched using facts. Bottom line: OBAMA LIED! We have and in fact have some really borderline people in government when it comes to truth, but never in my lifetime have I seen anything like this guy! However, we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised that in effect they rob from Peter to pay Paul. Time honored way of doing things in our dysfunctional capitol. But destroying our country with lies and deceit for political gain? Please note: What is explained below is important. Misleading the American public as these clowns are is not just about power. I believe it is treasonous! Someone has to get this through to the electorate before it's to late!

As usual, I’m sure good people like the two gentlemen I cite below will be vilified by the fawning admirers of our dictator, oops, I mean President. Funny how people like Peron, Castro and other dictators are admired by the very people they will crunch under their heels. I never quite understood that. As for me, I just can’t see how bankrupting our country and destroying the free market system along with Socializing the entire shit and caboodle will lead to anything other than utter failure of the great experiment known as the United States! And as always, it begins with an electorate that chooses to take and listen to lies and false promises from folks who’s only aim in life is absolute power.

Political fiction of "Trustees’ report" too much for CMS actuary
August 9th, 2010 | Author: Bruce McQuain

You remember last week when the supposed “good news” was released – Social Security wasn’t in as dire shape as we’d been told and Medicare was going to be fine too? Yeah, since ObamaCare passed and the doc fix was sure to be implemented, not to mention the half trillion in cuts to Medicare, why we were on the road not only to solvency but to deficit reduction.

And the yearly bit of political theater played out as planned:
The normal process with the annual Trustees’ Reports is for the Trustees to develop and publish the best available projections for the future finances of Social Security and Medicare. The respective Social Security and Medicare actuaries then sign a pro forma blessing of those projections, which is tacked to the back of the report when released to the public.

“Pro forma” is the key. Usually, whether they believe the rosy projections or not, their signatures appear on the report.
But this year, one of them just couldn’t do it in good conscience. The Medicare Chief Actuary just couldn’t sign his name to the fiction without adding a memo of his own.

The actuary’s alternative memo explains that “the projections in the report do not represent the ‘best estimate’ of actual future Medicare expenditures.” Worse than that, they are not even in the ballpark of reasonability. The official 2010 Trustees’ Report tells us that total Medicare expenses will be total 6.37% of GDP by 2080. The CMS actuary’s alternative memorandum explains that 10.70% of GDP is a more reasonable estimate for that year – though one that is roughly 68% higher.
The two reasons the actuary cites are the “doc fix” – a formula the actuary describes as "clearly unworkable and almost certain to be overridden by Congress” (both the Obama administration and leaders in Congress are on record opposing them – yet there they are in the report on the “plus” side of the ledger).

The other assumption the actuary dismisses as unrealistic is the assumption that future program cost will be contained by “downward adjustments in annual price updates reflecting in turn the assumption that health service productivity growth will parallel “economy-wide productivity.” The actuary flatly states there is no evidence to support this assumption and, on the contrary, much to call it deeply into question.

E21 notes:
This is a key point; the glowingly optimistic projections in the official Trustees’ Report assume that we as a nation will be content to have 40% of our medical facilities go under within the next 40 years, and that we will happily accept these severe constraints upon beneficiaries’ access to health care. If that is not in fact the societal will after the enactment of health care reform, then the official cost estimates should be tossed into the nearest receptacle.

Bad though all of this is, none of it is actually the worst gimmick in the official report’s advertised improvement in Medicare solvency. That involves the double-counting of Medicare savings. Earlier this year, Congress passed a health care bill containing various new Medicare taxes and constraints on program expenditures. Such savings are assumed in the official report to extend the solvency of Medicare. But Congress chose instead to spend the savings on a new health care entitlement.
Remember, the Trustees’ report, like CBO projections, must be based on current law. So they must include the assumptions contained within those laws. What the actuary says very bluntly is the assumptions are a fantasy and that the reality of the situation is far from that included in the report.

“(T)he financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range. . . or the long range. . . . I encourage readers to review the ‘illustrative alternative’ projections that are based on more sustainable assumptions for physician and other Medicare price updates.
You can read that “illustrative alternative” here. Needless to say the Trustees’ report, as published, belongs on the same shelf in your library as “The Wizard of Oz.”
~McQ

Rob Port:
Accounting Gimmicks: Democrats Using Cuts To Food Stamps Program To Pay For States Bailout
Rob Port • August 9, 2010

Here’s the thing: They’re not really paying for it.
The much-hyped bailout for government workers in the states is being “paid for”, according to Democrats, by cuts to the food stamps program. Which, whatever you may feel about the bailouts for unionized public workers, sounds reasonable enough.
Until you realize that the Democrats are pledging to re-instate the food stamps spending as soon as the bailouts pass.

Liberal Democrats said they will vote for a $26.1 billion state aid bill when the House reconvenes this week but are committed to restoring the food stamps program funding that is being used to pay for it …
Nearly half of the state aid bill’s cost is being offset by taking $12 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the official name for the food stamps program. The bill finds those savings by ending in 2014 a stimulus program that has increased food stamp levels.

They’re counting the money twice, basically. They count it once as savings that “pay for” the bailouts for the states. Then they count it again as a restoration of funding to the food stamps program.

This is actually the same sort of accounting deception Democrats used on the health care bill. Over the weekend Obama’s weekly radio address touted a government report claiming that Obamacare added another 12 years of solvency to Medicare. The problem is that the report indicated that the additional 12 years of solvency was nothing but an accounting gimmick.

They counted the spending twice.
Liberals are entitled to their own opinions about government policy. They’re not entitled to their own math.