CBO Meeting

Lately those pushing health care reform can’t seem to catch a break on their budget numbers. On a number of occasions the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has shot down the predictions in their bills.

First, the CBO determined that the health care reform bill would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years. The sticker shock was nearly fatal.

Second, was the claim by that the health care reform bills before Congress would “bend the curve” on spending. In other words, it would lower health care spending in the out years. The CBO said no. In fact, it said that health care spending would significantly increase.

Third, there was the attempt to fix the Medicare provision for the “sustainable growth rate” that forces the doctors’ reimbursements down if Medicare spending goes up. Proponents argued that this wasn’t an expense but a fix. The CBO disagreed.

What happened next appears to be unprecedented. The president, obviously upset with these numbers, called the CBO Director to the White House. I doubt their chat was very cordial.

Some White House officials argued that this was not unusual. Actually it was unprecedented. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director during George W. Bush’s administration said he never met with Mr. Bush to discuss CBO policies or estimates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used a baseball analogy. He said: “that’s like asking the umpires to come up to the owner’s box . . . . I mean, if the CBO is to have credibility, they’re the umpire.”

Calling the economic umpire to the White House is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to challenge its assumptions and predictions. In the past conservatives have questioned CBO assumptions about tax cuts and economic development. And Dr. Merrill Matthews warns conservatives and Republicans not to praise the CBO too much because “the CBO will not be our new BFF (Best Friend Forever).”

It’s OK to argue with the umpire, but to call the umpire to the White House smacks of intimidation and manipulation. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.