The CBO scored the concepts described by the Baucus Committee. There is no legislative text. None. Baucus and his Democratic colleagues refused to reduce their concepts to actual legislation prior to a vote. Here is the CBO's disclaimer:CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.The Baucus Concepts are disasterous, but that's for another post. For this post, let me get across a simple concept: THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.
Your esteemed Senators on the Senate Finance Committee will not be voting on legislation because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.
Your esteemed Senators have so little respect for you that some of them are willing to vote in favor of legislation which does not exist because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.
The actual legislation will be drafted in secret by Harry Reid and a few other people, including staffers whose names and political connections you never will know, and the resulting legislation will be rammed through the Senate and House before anyone gets to read and analyze it.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, McQ from QandO has another little tidbit:
As the CBO once said on its initial scoring, this bill would have to run, unchanged, for 10 years for it to unfold, cost wise, as they’re saying it will unfold. That means co-ops, not the public option.
If the public option is included, all the savings supposedly found in this bill go out the window and costs skyrocket. And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say that the final bill will have a public option.
Hot Air also points out a specific line in the CBO report which states "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
You can read the full 27-page letter at NRO. The money line in the section on budgetary impact: “Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.” Expect that to be a key GOP talking point given that (a) amendments to Baucus’s bill will wreak havoc with this analysis and (b) Medicare’s initial projection of $12 billion in expenditures for the year 1990 turned out to be “uncertain” too. How uncertain? Actual 1990 expenditures ended up at $107 billion, a cool 800 percent higher than Congress thought they’d be. Woe unto him who relies on any conservative estimate of how much a giant social program will cost.
Last but not least we have the Wall Street Journal piece where Karl Rove digs into all the polling numbers and how fast the Democrats have fallen out of favor:
Just look at how President Barack Obama's standing has fallen as he has pushed for reform. According to Fox News surveys, the number of independents who oppose health-care reform hit 57% at the end of September, up from 33% in July. Independents are generally a quarter of the vote in off-year congressional elections.
Among college graduates, opposition to health-care reform is now 50%, while only 33% support it, according to Gallup's Sept. 24 poll. College graduates are slightly more than a quarter of the off-year electorate.
Among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% in last month's Economist/YouGov Poll. But the number from that poll that should spook Democrats is this: 47% of seniors said they "strongly" oppose health-care reform, just 27% "strongly" support it. Seniors are the biggest consumers of health care, and their family members will probably take their concerns seriously. Seniors will likely cast about 20% of the votes next year.
The trend behind these numbers is that voters are turning away from Democrats. In 2006, the year the GOP lost control of Congress, Democrats enjoyed a double-digit lead in several "generic ballot" polls—a measure of voters' party preference. Democrats held that lead until this year. Today, Gallup's generic ballot shows Democrats have a razor thin 46% to 44% edge. According to Gallop's numbers, independents now favor Republicans by nine points.
His conclusion is one I have said here before and often:
This battle is far from over. But what Democrats have to keep in mind is that there are two fights going on here—one over health care and another over which party will control Congress after next year's elections. By waging the first, they may be setting themselves up to lose the second.
.
