Politics & Policy

Faux Fiscal Restraint on the Road to Budgetary Armageddon

The Baucus bill is deficit reduction that only spendthrifts could love.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext. 246.

Sen. Max Baucus is the David Blaine of the Senate. In a world-class act of contortion, he stuffed his version of Obamacare beneath $1 trillion over ten years and twisted it into a deficit-reduction measure.

The bill stacks rickety assumptions atop political improbabilities, but the Congressional Budget Office says that, on paper, it costs “only” $829 billion and reduces the deficit by $81 billion over the next decade. This is enough to garner headlines hailing its fiscal responsibility. By the standards of hurry-up-and-spend Washington, $829 billion is the new affordable.

But it is deficit reduction that only spendthrifts could love. Looked at another way, the Baucus bill finds $910 billion worth of spending reductions and tax increases, and spends all but $81 billion of it. On its own terms, it takes the debt that will be accumulated in the next ten years from $7.14 trillion all the way down to $7.06 trillion. Surely, Suze Orman would not approve.

#ad#Even if the Baucus bill could be taken at face value — and it can’t. Its drafters cleverly worked with the academic enterprise of the CBO evaluation in mind. The bill slowly phases in its subsidies (just $8 billion in 2013, exploding to $180 billion in 2019) so they will be offset by the more front-loaded tax increases and spending cuts in the initial ten years.

Then there are the spending cuts themselves. They are firmly within the tradition of Ronald Reagan’s infamous “magic asterisk,” denoting future unspecified savings. The Baucus bill is quite specific — it will supposedly cut Medicare provider rates by nearly 25 percent in 2011 — but wholly unrealistic. The promised Medicare reductions are budgetary leprechauns, fodder for fools and the self-deluding.

The last time Congress said it was going to impose drastic across-the-board Medicare cuts, in the 1997 budget deal, it lost its will almost immediately. Not delivering on mandatory Medicare cuts is practically an annual rite. Since the 1990s, a “sustainable growth rate” formula has been written in law to keep Medicare spending from outstripping the growth of the overall economy, which it always does. Congress invariably defers the cut.

It’s against this backdrop that the Baucus bill undertakes to squeeze $100 billion of savings annually (!) out of Medicare and Medicaid by 2019. In the most polite and understated bureaucratic language, the CBO expresses its doubt: “These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation.” In other words: We know that you know that we know this is a charade.

In fact, once real-world political pressures are considered, the bill is a fiscal time bomb. Its premier tax increase, an excise tax on insurers offering expensive insurance plans, will simply be passed along to consumers. It is structured so that, as health-care costs increase, more insurance plans will meet the threshold for taxation, and more middle-class families will be affected. Over time, pressure for relief from its growing bite will likely become irresistible.

On the spending side, the Baucus bill offers generous insurance subsidies only to a tightly limited group of people who don’t already have employer-provided coverage. As James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center writes, “CBO’s assessment of the Baucus bill is built on the dubious assumption that Congress can hand out a lucrative new entitlement to a limited number of low- and moderate-income voters while denying it to tens of millions of others.”

If the Medicare cuts won’t materialize, and the revenues won’t grow as expected, and the subsidies (already projected to grow at 8 percent per year) will expand, the Baucus bill is merely the thin wedge of another out-of-control entitlement. We already have several of those, and already are slated to run $1 trillion annual deficits before the advent of a new one. The Baucus bill is faux fiscal restraint on the road to budgetary Armageddon.

Rich Lowry — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

PC Culture

Hate-Crime Hoaxes Reflect America’s Sickness

On January 29, tabloid news site TMZ broke the shocking story that Jussie Smollett, a gay black entertainer and progressive activist, had been viciously attacked in Chicago. Two racist white men had fractured his rib, poured bleach on him, and tied a noose around his neck. As they were leaving, they shouted ... Read More

Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie

In a viral exchange at a congressional hearing last week, the new congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, who is quickly establishing herself as the most reprehensible member of the House Democratic freshman class despite stiff competition, launched into Elliott Abrams. She accused the former Reagan official ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Strange Paradoxes of Our Age

Modern prophets often say one thing and do another. Worse, they often advocate in the abstract as a way of justifying their doing the opposite in the concrete. The result is that contemporary culture abounds with the inexplicable — mostly because modern progressivism makes all sorts of race, class, and ... Read More
PC Culture

Fake Newspeople

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a ... Read More

White Progressives Are Polarizing America

To understand how far left (and how quickly) the Democratic party has moved, let’s cycle back a very short 20 years. If 1998 Bill Clinton ran in the Democratic primary today, he’d be instantaneously labeled a far-right bigot. His support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, ... Read More

One Last Grift for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the antique Brooklyn socialist who represents Vermont in the Senate, is not quite ready to retire to his lakeside dacha and so once again is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not belong with an agenda about which he cannot be quite entirely ... Read More
PC Culture

Merciless Sympathy

Jussie Smollett’s phony hate-crime story could have been taken apart in 24 hours, except for one thing: Nobody wanted to be the first to call bullsh**. Who will bell the cat? Not the police, and I don’t blame them. Smollett is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump who checks two protected-category ... Read More

Questions for Those Who Believed Jussie Smollett

The “we reported the Jussie Smollett case responsibly” contention has been blasted to smithereens. Twitter accounts and headlines in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times reported as fact Jussie Smollett’s wildly implausible allegations, and many other journalists did so as ... Read More