Unsubstantiated conspiracy? I beg your pardon....Remember:
Jesus. This is wildly inappropriate.
After a week in which Doug Elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that Congressional health care overhauls would balloon federal health care obligations by $240 billion over the next decade, the President Obama called him into the Oval Office for a little chat.
But Elmendorf didn't just get leaned on by the president. He was outnumbered by something like 10-1
CBO Chief Called Into the Principal's Oval Office | Rolling Stone Politics | National Affairs | Tim Dickinson on Political News
Yeah, sure you do.....
From Elmendorf's own blog:
Yes, sometimes it's just a guess on numbers provided him in this instance by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama....Just peachy.Sometimes, however, the pace of legislative activity does not allow time for a careful review of the specific language of a lengthy bill. Therefore, we sometimes provide preliminary analyses of legislation based on specifications given to us by committee or leadership staff. In those cases—for example, our preliminary analysis of health care legislation introduced in the House of Representatives in October 2009—we state clearly the limitations of that analysis compared with a standard formal cost estimate (in this case, noting that “the agency has not thoroughly reviewed the introduced legislation”).
Director's Blog » About CBO
Director's Blog » Blog Archive » The Effects of Health Reform on the Federal Budget
Where he had this to say.
In combination, the initial legislation and the subsequent reconciliation act that modified it will generate changes in direct spending and revenue that will reduce federal deficits by $143 billion during the 2010-2019 period.
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
Year 1 - 178
Year 2 - 189
Year 3 - 165
If this showed change in, it would be fantastic - a 165 person growth in year 3! On the other hand, if it shows the number of employed, it means a drop of 24 people, which is not so good.
Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.