Health care fight? GOP hypocrisy

Posted by J.D. On Monday, December 28, 2009 1 comments
While the Republicans (a.k.a. the party of NO) fight against health care reform citing the possibility of enlarging the federal deficit.

Granted, the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise. The CBO claims it will actually save money. Specifically, $132 billion in the first 10 years.

But the Republicans didn't care so much about enlarging the deficit when they were in charge. Not at all.

Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.

The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

And what exactly is the excuse for being pro-enlarging the deficit when they were in charge and exceptionally anti-any new spending now that they aren't?

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question."


This is the party who continuously claim that the country would be better off with them completely in charge...but when they were, but Hatch's own admission, it was "standard practice to not pay for things"?

Amazing how losing an election and consequently desperately needing the votes of some angry tea baggers will suddenly change your perspective on needing to pay for things.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. Bartlett disagrees with the Republican sentiment that the past is past and today is today.

"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."

But then, Bartlett has been disenchanted with the current Republican party for a while now. Back in August, Bartlett had the following to say:

I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years, as I explained in my Impostor book. In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. I still consider myself to be a Reaganite. But I don’t see any others anywhere in the GOP these days, which is why I consider myself to be an independent. Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is “what can we do to screw the Democrats today.”

That same month, he chastised tea baggers for aiming their ire at the wrong man.

Specifically, rather than falling for the GOP meme that Obama is the source of America's financial ills, it was in fact Bush who brought this all down on us.

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

The current GOP doesn't care about making America better nor do they care about helping Americans. They care about scoring political points.

As Bartlett said, the GOP's entire policy these days is "what can we do to screw the Democrats today".

When they rail against the Democrats health care bill remember: they are hypocrites and they are only concerned with amassing power and/or punishing Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.


Jolly Roger said...

Fascism is all about totalitarian control, and these Fascists are absolutely furious that the American voter would turn them out.

Why should they change? They're always right; the ones who are wrong are those who would dare to disagree with them. Junket John and Mooch will hang onto their failed policies, stupidity, and corruption forever, so the only recourse they really have is to try to make this President worse than even their monkey was.

Post a Comment

Please read out comment policy before posting a comment.