In a January 19th article title “The White House Looks for Work” The New York Times Peter Baker reports:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus, produced or saved at least 1.9 million jobs and as many as 4.7 million last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Someone reading this sentence might conclude that the CBO has analyzed actual real world data taken before, during, and after the stimulus and concluded that it saved jobs. This is completely false. The CBO job estimate numbers are based off of a computer model that does not incorporate any … Continue Reading

Senate Democrats want both a $200 billion deficit spending jobs bill, but they also want to appear as though they care about the growing national debt. Covering this dilemma for The New York Times, David Leonhardt wrote on June 1st:

Of course, even if the bill is not very expensive, it is worth passing only if it will make a difference. And economists say it will.

Last year’s big stimulus program certainly did. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.4 million to 3.4 million people now working would be unemployed were it not for the stimulus.

But the CBO estimates are not … Continue Reading

Ron Brownstein writes in the May 8th National Journal:

Republicans who say that President Obama’s stimulus plan hasn’t created any jobs must ignore not only the Congressional Budget Office (whose latest estimate put the total as high as 2.1 million) but also the more immediate examples of Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey.

The stimulus may very well end up helping Toomey and Rubio become Senators, but Brownstein fails to report just how easy the CBO’s stimulus job numbers are easy to ignore. As The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl reported on March 26th:

CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they

… Continue Reading

Covering President Barack Obama’s final push for his health plan, AFP’s Stephen Collinson reported on March 19th:

Democrats are also touting an estimate by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which says the bill could cut 130 billion dollars from the bloated US deficit through 2019 and 1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

But the CBO reported no such thing. Here is the report. The $1.2 trillion figure does not appear anywhere in it.

When National Review associate editor Robert VerBruggen asked the CBO whether or not they had arrived at the $1.2 trillion figure, the CBO responded: … Continue Reading

A December 8th Associated Press item by David Espo reports:

At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.

The first two items are fine, but the last assertion on cost control is just plain false. Much of the media bought Democrats spin that the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill showed that proposed health care changes are somehow fiscally responsible. Yet what the CBO actually reported was … Continue Reading

The November 2nd Associated Press article by David Espo, AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion, is a great start at honest reporting on the true costs of the House health care bill. Espo reports:

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of

… Continue Reading

Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery report in the October 24th The Washington Post:

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House have concluded that a government-run insurance plan is the cheapest way to expand health coverage, and they sought Friday to rally support for the idea, prospects for which have gone in a few short weeks from bleak to bright.

Murray and Montgomery first note:

In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

This is true, by itself, but then Murray and Montgomery later report:

Because a

… Continue Reading

Reporters are usually not responsible for the headlines over their articles, but the headline over Robert Pear’s and David Herszenhorn’s October 7th New York Times article is simply misleading: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” Pear and Herszebhorn do report that the Congressional Budget Office “cost analysis” is on the Senate Finance Committee bill, but then they down play the ramifications of the fact, writing:

Republicans, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation, minimized the significance of the cost analysis. They suggested that the “real” bill would be written secretly by Democratic leaders as they combine the

… Continue Reading

This Sunday on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos twice misrepresented a recent Congressional Budget Office report on the costs of the recently passed Waxman-Markey climate cap and trade legislation. First he interrupted President Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod asserting that the EPA pegged the cost of Waxman-Markey at “about $150 a year.” Later he through the same talking point at Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) asking:

And [Axelrod] did point to these Congressional Budget Office numbers which show it’s only about a $150 in 2020 for an average family.

First lets focus on the two facts Stephanopoulos got blatantly wrong: … Continue Reading