On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” 

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.” 

I am told the section applies to exactly one state:  Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world:  Louisiana.  (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost?  According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Click here to read the full article and text of the Landrieu language.

Help Wanted
The Democratic Party seeks a wildly optimistic individual to oversee a national jobs-creation program.

Wanted: National Jobs Czar

Employer: The Democratic Party

Job Type: Crisis Management/Complex Mathematics/Mental Health Professional

Start Date: Now. Like, Right Now.

Description: The Democratic Party seeks a wildly optimistic individual to oversee a national jobs-creation program. Jobs can be real, or not, so long as the public thinks the party is “doing something.” The National Jobs Creator will have at his disposal Congress to pass new “jobs legislation” (aka The It-Is-Not-Another-Stimulus Act of 2009).

The NJC will oversee a dynamic team whose side responsibilities include selling this to the public and saving our behinds in next year’s election. This is a potential career status position.

Minimum Qualifications:

• Masters Degree from an accredited program in communications/spin. Candidate must be able to explain to the public why “new jobs legislation” is necessary despite assurances the “old jobs legislation”—a $787 billion “stimulus”—is working. Applicant must demonstrate ability to explain why, despite a global recession, we continued socializing health care, and only just noticed that, wow, Houston, we have a problem. (Candidate might consider researching McDonnell, Bob, Gov.-elect of Virginia, who just kicked us in an election and did it talking about “jobs.” That got us wondering.)

Candidate must explain the “new jobs legislation” to a wary public. Candidate must clarify how extending unemployment benefits will create jobs; how extending health insurance for the unemployed will create jobs; how taxing financial transactions to pay for this will create jobs. Candidate is responsible for immediately restoring party credibility on this issue, despite all past failed Keynesian spending and, let’s be honest, some (holy moly!) embarrassing stimulus “job counting.”

• Ph.D. in imaginary numbers: Candidate must demonstrate a better ability than those currently in charge to translate past stimulus pork into current countable jobs. Applicant must show working knowledge of fictitious congressional districts. (Example of interview question: Show how, using the white board and string theory, an $890 shoe order creates nine new jobs.) Candidate must be able to dismantle audits showing the White House’s 640,000 “saved or created” jobs are as real as the Easter Bunny. These skills will also prove necessary in outlining the benefits of “new jobs legislation.” Candidate must be able to explain, numerically and cosmically, why 10.2% unemployment is no different than the 8% ceiling we promised.

• Expert knowledge of “the deficit,” a $1.4 trillion concept we like to describe as “investing in the future.” When the White House says it will apply unused TARP money to pay down the deficit, and Congress says it will use unused TARP money to help fund a “new jobs program,” candidate must make both true at the same time.

Candidate is required to conduct hourly meetings with Blue Dogs who, after that health-care vote, are so freaking out just because we are asking them to also charge a Medicare doctor fix, a highway bill, and possibly our “new jobs legislation” to the federal credit card. Candidate must explain to Blue Dogs they lost their reputation years ago.

• Significant understanding of the concept of “saved or created jobs.” The party is aware no legitimate economics department recognizes this theory, so we do not require a degree. Candidate must explain to public that it is just not true that no part of the country has seen job creation. The federal government has hired at least 25,000 new employees since January.

• Profound people skills. Candidate must be able to walk into a circular firing squad and calm volatile personalities that range from panicked to uncorked to dazed.

Example 1: When a Wisconsin congressman (who wrote the stimulus bill) loses his cool because the administration came up with this “jobs saved or created” thingy and is now making said congressman look bad with its “job” counts, the candidate must say, “There, there; 40 years is longer than most people get to serve in the House.”

Example 2: When a vice president pops off that the stimulus is working “better” than we “expected,” candidate must pack No. 2 off to a golf course.

Example 3: When the White House director of “stimulus” communications becomes so frazzled by bogus job numbers that he responds to the press: “Who knows, man? Who really knows?” candidate must re-hire.

Disqualifications: Candidates with an interest in pro-growth policies, or a desire to provide certainty to investors, consumers or the business community. Candidates who believe the private sector creates jobs.

Salary: The balance of the “quick hit” $787 billion stimulus or the balance of last year’s “temporary” TARP program—whichever is greater in 2050. Subject to approval by pay czar Ken Feinberg.

To Apply: Electronic submissions preferred (our phones are a bit busy). Résumé required. Letters of recommendation encouraged from Jimmy Carter, Paul Krugman, or the dude who oversaw Japan’s “Lost Decade.”

The death tax is a drag on America’s family-owned businesses, destroys jobs, and lowers wages while raising little revenue. As such, Congress should repeal the estate tax once and for all to remove an unfair burden from the backs of American family-owned businesses and their workers…

Economic Benefits of Full Repeal

A recent study found that a full repeal of the death tax would create 1.5 million jobs. This is half the number of jobs President Obama claimed the $800 billion stimulus package would create–at one-fifth the price.

Additional benefits from full repeal of the estate tax include:

• �
  • Increasing small business capital by over $1.6 trillion;
  • Increasing the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent;
  • Increasing payrolls by 2.6 percent;
  • Expanding investment by 3 percent; and
  • Slashing the current jobless rate by 0.9 percent.

The death tax also impedes economic growth because it stands opposed to the principles of virtue, thrift, and savings that made America the strongest nation on earth. For those Americans who think that their estates may one day pay federal death taxes, the death tax increases their incentive to consume their wealth today rather than invest and make more money in the future. Instead of putting their money in the hands of entrepreneurs or investing more in their own economic endeavors, Americans get the unmistakable message to consume it now.

Kill the Death Tax

It is time for Congress to kill the death tax once and for all. Doing so would lift a tremendous weight off the shoulders of America’s family-owned businesses, create jobs for out-of-work Americans, and help the ailing economy.

To read the full memo, click here. 

The AJC is reporting that UGA’s mascot, Uga VII, died today.  Jack had the opportunity to meet him on the sidelines of this weekend’s victory against Auburn.

Jack participated in the “Holiday Mail for Heroes” today, a program sponsored by the American Red Cross that allows Americans to send Christmas cards to soliders and veterans both at home and abroad.  If you’d like to learn more, click here.

62%     More tax cuts
21%     More government stimulus spending
17%     Not sure

Rasmussen; conducted November 17-18, 2009; Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters Nationwide

The report shows that:

• 59,386 jobs were claimed to have been “created or saved” by projects on which no “stimulus” money was spent

• $965,000,000 was spent on 10,000 projects without creating a single job

As we reported yesterday, the White House’s $18 million website says they spent $6,217,770 in seven non-existent congressional districts to create only 1 job.

The $1.9 Trillion Gimmick
The Democrats’ ‘doc fix’ for Medicare payments would shock Madoff.

What passes for a joke on Capitol Hill these days is that Bernie Madoff, given his experience managing Ponzi schemes, should be put in charge of the federal budget. Nancy Pelosi & Co. seem to have taken it as a serious suggestion.

Any day now, the House is expected to vote on a $210 billion fiscal swindle that will prevent automatic cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The entitlement’s price controls are scheduled to fall by 21.5% in January and another 2% every year after that under a formula known as the sustainable growth rate, and eliminating the SGR was the price the American Medical Association demanded in return for its endorsement of the House health-care bill that passed earlier this month.

The “doc fix” was originally part of ObamaCare, until Mrs. Pelosi realized that adding a quarter-trillion dollars to the total tab made it difficult to pretend the bill would reduce the deficit. In the “Fiscal Responsibility” section of the press release announcing the separate SGR package, Democrats insist that it will be subject to “the ‘pay as you go’ principle of budget discipline,” which “requires Congress to find a way to pay for any new spending” with new taxes or cuts.

The Comedy Central punchline: “A previous Congress established the policy for paying Medicare doctors, so the update for 2010 is not a new policy to be paid for. . . . The Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act would not increase total payments to physicians above what they are today and therefore, would not be subject to the paygo requirement.” In other words, under the Madoff school of accounting, Democrats rely on straight deficit spending.

Yet even that obscures the true costs. Mrs. Pelosi stripped $35 billion from the original score by changing the way Medicare pays for drugs administered in physician offices and raiding a Medicare reserve fund. President Obama’s continued promises that he won’t sign a health bill that increases the deficit is by now indefensible.

Everyone agrees that the SGR must be corrected, given that steeper cuts in Medicare’s submarket price controls mean that many physicians will refuse to treat seniors—but not without cleaning up the mess created by the prior cost-control inspirations of the political class. A new Heritage Foundation study by the former Medicare trustee Thomas Saving and economist Andrew Rettenmaier finds that eliminating the SGR without offsets will increase Medicare’s unfunded liabilities by $1.9 trillion over the next 75 years. Given that the entitlement is already about $39 trillion in the hole (give or take a few trillion), the SGR fix alone is a European-style value-added tax waiting to happen, not including the huge new permanent spending commitments created by ObamaCare.

Senate Democrats already scotched the two-bill approach earlier this month, which is itself a good indication of how reckless Mrs. Pelosi’s gambit is. Even Madoff might blush.

7%       Created jobs already
46%      Will create jobs eventually
42%      Will never create jobs
5%       Do not know

CBS News; conducted November 13-16, 2009; Survey of 1,167 Adults Nationwide

Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), pictured above with (from left) Congressman Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) and Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-FL), makes good on a bet with Congresswoman Brown over the winner of the Georgia-Florida game. Congressman Kingston bet Claxton (Georgia) Fruit Cakes to Congresswoman Brown’s Florida oranges.  While Congressman Crenshaw now represents northeast Florida in Congress, he attended the University of Georgia on a basketball scholarship.

Now those fake jobs have some company: fake congressional districts.

According to the Recovery.gov Web site, seven Georgia congressional districts that do not exist received millions of federal stimulus dollars. Click below for a screenshot of the website:

Recovery.Gov claims that 1 job was created in the seven phantom congressional districts with a total of $6,217,770 federal stimulus dollars spent.  What’s worse: that the districts don’t exist or that the federal government spent more than $6 million to create one job?

Want to learn more about the Administration’s phantom job debacle?  Visit:

• Recovery.Gov - Georgia Stimulus Recipients by Congressional District
• ABC News - Exclusive: Jobs ‘Saved or Created’ in Congressional Districts That Don’t Exist
• Oversight Republicans - Stimulus Watch
• Sunshine.GOP.Gov - Shining Light on Government Spending
• Onivia - Tracking Recovery

From the article:

The organizations — including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group— will make clear that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment.

Full article:

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
November 17, 2009

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

The organizations — including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group— will make clear that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment.

They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”

In speaking out on jobs, N.A.A.C.P. leaders say they are not trying to pick a fight with the first African-American president. Rather, they say, they are pressing Mr. Obama in an area where they believe he wants to be pressured.

“It’s time for us to really stoke this issue up,” said Hilary O. Shelton, the N.A.A.C.P.’s senior vice president for advocacy and policy. “We’re not so much trying to convince him to do something he doesn’t want to do, but urging him to move forward on an issue we have agreement on.”

African-American leaders say it makes sense to pressure the president on jobs because the unemployment rate for blacks has jumped to 15.7 percent, from 8.9 percent when the recession started 23 months ago. That compares with 13.1 percent for Hispanics and 9.5 percent for whites.

The black unemployment rate has climbed above 20 percent in several states, reaching 23.9 percent in Michigan and 20.4 percent in South Carolina.

In recent months, the N.A.A.C.P. has lobbied Mr. Obama on numerous issues, including the hate crimes bill and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for employees to sue over pay discrimination. But this is the first time in Mr. Obama’s presidency that the organization is throwing its full weight into the economic debate.

It is being joined by another group that fought for civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

“Make no mistake, for us this is the civil rights issue of the moment,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference. “Unless we resolve the national job crisis, it will make it hard to address all of our other priorities.”

Mr. Obama has invited groups nationwide to voice their views and recommendations on jobs in preparation for his job summit next month.

“Obama keeps saying, ‘Push me to do the right thing,’  said Steven Pitts, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “I don’t see this as any break with Obama. The current political alignment of forces doesn’t support a new economic stimulus package. They’re trying to create an alignment of political forces to counteract that.”

Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative group, said it was laudable that the N.A.A.C.P. and other liberal groups were pressuring Mr. Obama, although he said their call for additional stimulus was wrong.

“Everybody should pressure him,” Mr. Hassett said. “And it might be the conservative groups aren’t pressuring him enough, because they think maybe he won’t listen. I would hope the people pressuring the president would push away from the divisive type of recommendations that we need more of the same, that we need more stimulus.”

Mr. Hassett called for cutting taxes to create jobs and for reducing many workers to three-fifths or four-fifths time in work-sharing programs to avoid layoffs.

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group, coordinated the jobs statement being released Tuesday, which will also be joined by the Center for Community Change.

“Despite an effective and bold recovery package, we are still facing a prolonged period of high unemployment,” the groups say. “Two years from now, absent further action, we are likely to have unemployment at 8 percent or more, a higher rate than attained even at the worst point of the last two downturns.”

The groups call for spurring private-sector job growth through tax credits and loans to small and medium businesses. They note that 17.5 percent of the labor force — more than 27 million Americans — are underemployed, including one in four minority workers. They say they expect one-third of the work force — and 40 percent of minority workers —to be unemployed or underemployed at some point over the next year.

“Americans are confronting the worst jobs situation in more than half a century,” the groups say. “This is not a situation we must continue to tough out. A robust plan to create jobs in transparent, effective, and equitable ways can put America back to work.”

To read the full report, click here.

10. Troubled Firms Will Get Bigger:  On August 28, 2009, a Washington Post article on the government’s efforts to bailout firms considered “too big to fail” stated, “When the credit crisis struck last year, federal regulators pumped tens of billions of dollars into the nation’s leading financial institutions because the banks were so big that officials feared their failure would ruin the entire financial system.  Today, the biggest of those banks are even bigger…[N]o consequence of the crisis alarms top regulators more than having banks that were already too big to fail grow even larger and more interconnected.”

9. Injects Politics Into the Resolution Process:  On October 27, 2009, a Wall Street Journal editorial on the evolution of TARP stated, “TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline…TARP was then redirected well beyond the financial system into $80 billion in “investments” for auto companies. These may never be repaid but served as a lever to abuse creditors and favor auto unions.  TARP also bought preferred stock in struggling insurers Lincoln and Hartford, though insurance companies are not subject to bank runs and pose no “systemic risk.”

8. Lacks Transparency:  On March 17, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported, “After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds have been going. Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks [including Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch], municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world…”  AIG has received up to $180 billion in taxpayer funds.

7. Props Up Failed Firms:  According to a July 27, 2009 report on CNNMoney.com, “The first big government bailout of the financial crisis—the takeover of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—is poised to be the most expensive and complicated to complete.  Since Congress essentially wrote a blank check to the Treasury Department in July 2008 to do what needed to be done to inject capital into the two firms, Fannie has received $34.2 billion of direct government support while Freddie has received $51.7 billion.” 

6. Throws Good Money After Bad:  On November 2, 2009, an article in Fortune stated, “CIT filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Sunday.  The New York based small business lender said all its common and preferred shares will be canceled, which will wipe out the $2.3 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program investment the Treasury Department made last December.”

5. Can’t Afford the Current Bailout:  On September 24, 2009, Bloomberg reported, “The FDIC’s insurance fund is going broke…”
�
4. Lacks A Record of Success:  On November 13, 2009, The Washington Post reported, “The Federal Housing Administration’s cash reserves have shrunk to a level [.53 percent] far below what is required by law, and the agency could need taxpayer funding…”

3. Lacks Accountability:  According to the July 2009 Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) report, “The Federal Reserve has been one of the lead agencies responding to the financial crisis—increasing its balance sheet to more than $2 trillion to implement a wide range of programs designed to stimulate liquidity in financial markets, as well as several institution-specific interventions.”

2. Exposes Taxpayers:  In a July 20, 2009 Bloomberg article, Neil Barofsky, of SIGTARP stated, “U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies…”

1. Creates a Purse Without Limits:  In recent testimony, Secretary Geithner refused to commit to limit the amount of taxpayer dollars that would be available to bail out large firms.

Courtesy House Republican Conference

“If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?”

23%     Better
53%     Worse
18%     Stay the same
5%       Not sure

“If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?”

52%     Up
19%     Down
21%     Stay the same
7%       Not sure

Rasmussen Reports; conducted November 7-8, 2009; Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters Nationwide

Jack supports targeted reforms that will address the fundamental flaws in our health care system without burdening future generations with an untenable debt.

It’s clear now however, that Pelosi’s spending scheme (the so-called “stimulus”) has failed.  Late last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their Employment Situation Summary showing that the unemployment rate soared to 10.2% in October.  The chart below, courtesy The Heritage Foundation, shows just how drasticly they got it wrong:

As you’ll remember, House Republicans proposed a plan that would create twice the jobs at half the price.  It’s time to repeal Pelosi’s Plan, pay down the debt, and empower America’s true economic drivers - small businesses and working families - to rebuild our economy.

From WJCL’s The Costal Source:

From WTOC’s The News:

NOTE:Democrats are revealing that putting the country back to work is a lesser priority than passing their social agenda.

If that weren’t true, they wouldn’t even consider any measure that would raise taxes on job creators.

Higher taxes, particularly on business, always result in fewer jobs. Both the health care and climate change bills will trigger huge tax hikes for every taxpayer.

Jobs a low priority for Democrats

By Nolan Finley, Detroit News
November 8, 2009

Americans are angry with Washington as much for what it isn’t doing as what it is.

What it isn’t doing the most is paying attention to the still-raging economic disaster.

Last week’s job numbers show unemployment nationally bumping past 10 percent and surpassing 15 percent in Michigan. Unemployment keeps climbing, even though President Barack Obama and Congress nine months ago committed $787 billion to creating jobs.

Since then, neither the White House nor Congress has spent a minute honestly analyzing whether the stimulus program is accomplishing its goal, and if not, what other approaches might work.

Instead, the administration is spinning dismal economic reports into positive news, allowing both it and Congress to ignore the economy while they pursue their ideological ends.

It ought to infuriate anyone who’s lost a job, can’t find a job, is worried about his job or lives in a community ravaged by a lack of jobs that Congress devotes nearly all of its energy to arguing about health care.

The promise of health care reform was not what got Democrats elected. Voters tossed Republicans on their fannies for ruining the economy, not because they didn’t enact wildly expensive social programs.

But while the economy tops every list of public concerns, job creation is not the hot topic in Washington.

In fact, Democratic leaders, obsessed with reworking America, have proved more than willing to sacrifice precious jobs during the worst economic climate in a half-century.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., rammed an energy-rationing bill through her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week without a single Republican member in the room.

The bill would greatly limit America’s ability to produce the energy it needs to fuel an economic rebound. In other words, it’s a job killer.

Democrats are revealing that putting the country back to work is a lesser priority than passing their social agenda.

If that weren’t true, they wouldn’t even consider any measure that would raise taxes on job creators.

Higher taxes, particularly on business, always result in fewer jobs. Both the health care and climate change bills will trigger huge tax hikes for every taxpayer.

Democrats have learned nothing from history. During the Great Depression, each time the economy showed a spark, President Franklin Roosevelt snuffed it out with another tax increase or regulatory burden.

Obama is making the same mistake and justifying it by claiming health care and climate change are so urgent they can’t be delayed until the economy recovers, and perhaps we can afford the costs.

But one in 10 American workers are unemployed — one in seven in Michigan. Surely, that’s the most urgent priority.

If it doesn’t become so soon in Washington, the tea bags being hurled at the Capitol will turn into pitchforks.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News.

The Washington Post has the full story:

…But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment — enough to block passage…

It’s clear the fight isn’t over.  We’ll keep fighting to defend the right to life and to make sure your tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions.

Details from the memo can be found on Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley’s website by clicking here and Roll Call’s got the full story.

Seems strange that HHS would engage in the practice when it prohibited Medicare Advantage providers from communicating with their customers.

This story also sounds mighty familiar to a recent story posted here about the National Endowment for the Arts urging funded artists to create art that advances the President’s political goals.

Under H.R. 3962, CBO estimated that in 2019, there will be “about 18 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly one third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants).” This equates to approximately 6 million uninsured illegal immigrants.

For more information, visit http://kingston.house.gov/healthcare

Raises Taxes: The bill increases taxes by $766.6 billion over ten years that will harm small businesses and middle-class families. The bill also includes billions in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, cutting benefits and raising premiums on seniors. These cuts are not used to reduce the deficit, but instead to create new entitlement programs.

Costs: The total cost of the bill is nearly $1.3 trillion (not including the $210 billion “Doc Fix”), when including the cost to states for mandated Medicaid expansion ($34 billion) and authorized discretionary spending for grants, public programs, changes and funding for a variety of agencies that would be responsible for implementing H.R. 3962.

Government Takeover: Many conservatives may believe that the bill is a step away from personal, private coverage and choice, to a Washington-controlled healthcare system that rations care, limits choice, and reduces quality, innovation and competition.

Constitutionality: The U.S. Constitution and the principle of limited government are tested as never before by forcing Americans to purchase “acceptable” health care coverage or face a tax of 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income. The definition provided in the bill for “acceptable” coverage will surely force some Americans to purchase plans that include coverage they cannot afford, or don’t want or need.

Illegal Immigrants: The bill fails to adequately address citizen verification for individuals applying for low-income affordability subsidies, or enrolling in Medicaid/CHIP, or enrolling in high risk pools.

Funds Abortions: The underlying permits federal funds to be spent on abortion services

Lack of Medical Liability Reform: Trial lawyers get off scot-free as Democrats pay lip service to real medical malpractice reform, opting to hand over money for lawyer-friendly “alternatives” instead of limiting attorneys’ fees or capping damages.

Forces Americans Out of Current Plans: The government-run plan will force tens of millions out of the coverage they currently have - while Members of Congress are not subject to the same health care system Americans will have to live by.

Increases Premiums: The Democrats’ health care plan will increase premiums. As JCT, CBO and six other studies have shown, imposing new taxes on insurance policies, health care products, and various new insurance regulations will be drive up the cost for patients of all ages in the form of higher premiums.  Industry reports found that the youngest 30% of the population will see a 69% increase under the 2:1 age band included in the Pelosi Government Healthcare Takeover Bill.

Increases Personal Health Expenditures: CMS Actuaries predicts overall national health expenditures under the bill due to various regulations will jump by 2.1%, or $750.3 billion.

Bends the Curve in the Wrong Direction: According to CBO “On balance, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the bill would increase both federal outlays for health care and the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to the amounts under current law.”

Courtesy Republican Study Committee

To learn more, visit http://kingston.house.gov/healthcare