Sent to us from Arizona GOP National Committeeman
BRUCE ASH
(Thank You Bruce!!!)
Today, Hillary Is Lecturing About Math, Even Though She's Having Trouble Adding Up The Figures To Pay For Her Own Health Care Plan
______________________________________________________________________
Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Is Speaking At The Carnegie Institute On The Topic Of Math And Science:
"Hillary Clinton Is At The Carnegie Institute In Washington, D.C. At 9:00 Am ET To Talk About America's Commitment To Math And Science." (Karen Travers and Mike Chesney, "The Note's Sneak Peek," ABC News, 10/3/07)
But Hillary Has Had Trouble Adding Up Her Own Numbers For HillaryCare 2.0:
Her Plan Costs $110 Billion Annually, But She's Only Figured Out How To Pay For $87 Billion Of The Cost:
Hillary Plans To Raise Taxes On Those Earning Over $250,000, Which She Claims Would Raise $52 Billion Annually. "To pay for it, she would raise $52 billion a year by increasing taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, restoring tax rates to where they were when President Bush took office." (Laura Meckler and Jackie Calmes, "Clinton Health Plan Courts Business Allies," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/07)
"She Is Also Counting On $35 Billion In Savings To The Government Through A More Efficient Health System, Savings That May Or May Not Materialize." (Laura Meckler and Jackie Calmes, "Clinton Health Plan Courts Business Allies," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/07)
Many Have Noted That Repeal Of Tax Cuts And Modernization Plans Will Not Cover Cost Of Universal Health Care:
U.S. News & World Report's James Pethokoukis: "Oh, And Remember That Raising Income Taxes On Americans Making Over $200,000 Will Bring In Only $50 Billion Or So, Which Is Already Being Spent Several Times Over By The Dem Presidential Candidates." (James Pethokoukis, "The Magic $50 Billion Tax Hike," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 6/20/07)
A House Democratic Aide Said There's Flawed Logic In Basing Programs On Rolling Back Tax Cuts, Because "There's Just No Way To Know What Revenues Will Be." "A House Democratic aide said proposing new programs that rely on the Bush tax cuts seems like flawed logic because 'there's just no way to know what revenues will be.'" (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't A fford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
"Watchdog Groups And Legislative Sources Said It Is Impossible To Know Whether The Money From The ... Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest 2 Percent Of Americans Will Be Available For A President To Spend On Other Priorities." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
The Wall Street Journal: The Hillary Camp Projects $35 Billion In Savings From Modernizing Health Care Delivery, Which Is "Speculative, If Not Fanciful." "The rest of the estimated $110 billion per year in new government spending would be achieved by 'modernizing' health-care delivery and 'promoting wellness,' though this $35 billion in savings is speculative, if not fanciful." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
"Further Tax Hikes Would Be Required: That $110 Billion Is A Back-Of-The-Envelope Calculation, And Team Hillary Is Keeping The Specifics In Its Pocket." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
Experts Agree Hillary's Cost-Saving Health Care Reforms "Will Not Be Easy To Implement" And Could Be A Problem If Her "Subsidies End Up Costing Much More." "She has also unveiled a series of proposals over the past six months that encourage savings in the health sector to offset much of that new cost: improved efficiency, greater use of information technology, electronic medical records, improved quality of care and so on. Independent experts agree that big savings in those areas are possible, but caution that reform will not be easy to implement. But what if those ambitious savings do not come quickly, or if the subsidies end up costing much more?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
And In Reality, The Cost Could Be Much Closer To $200 Billion:
Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press: "Have You Ever Seen Any Federal Program That Did Not Cost Much More In Operation Than Estimated At The Beginning?" (Editorial, "Hillary Tax-And-Med Care," Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press, 9/19/07)
Regina Herzlinger Of Harvard Business School: The Cost Of HillaryCare 2.0 Will Be "Closer To $150 Billion - 200 Billion Per Year." "Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School ... cautions that the cost of her approach may be closer to $150 billion-200 billion per year. If so, would the plan then require a vast expansion of Medicare or huge new taxes--Hillarycare by the back door, as some critics say?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
RE-LIVING HISTORY: Hillary's Tax Hikes For Her 1993 Universal Health Care Did Not Cover Costs:
"Little Was Said About The Most Controversial, And Difficult, Question: How To Pay For These Reforms?" (Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder, The System, 1996, p. 80)
"Any Way They Looked At It, The Reforms Were Going To Cost About $50 Billion To $100 Billion In The Short Run, Before The Savings Could Be Realized. Most Of The Tax Options Couldn't Come Close To Raising This Kind Of Money." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 189)
"In The Meeting When The Question Of Cost Arose, Hillary Casually Tossed Out The $100 Billion Figure. Senator Jay Rockefeller, A Close Administration Ally On Health Care Reform, Dropped His Jaw. If They Were Planning To Spend $100 Billion, A Large New Unpopular Tax Would Be Unavoidable." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 190)
NOTE: Hillary Is Also Planning On Announcing $50 Billion In New Spending For An Energy Fund - Will She Say How She's Going To Pay For It?
Today, Hillary Will Also Pledge To Create A "$50-Billion Strategic Energy Fund." "The New York senator was to announce ... proposals of her science agenda in a speech in Washington on Thursday. ... As president, Clinton said she would ... Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels." (Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research," The Associated Press, 10/4/07)
Hillary: "I Have Tried To Set An Example On The Campaign By Explaining How I Am Going To Pay For My Top Priorities." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
PDF Format
______________________________________________________________________
Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Is Speaking At The Carnegie Institute On The Topic Of Math And Science:
"Hillary Clinton Is At The Carnegie Institute In Washington, D.C. At 9:00 Am ET To Talk About America's Commitment To Math And Science." (Karen Travers and Mike Chesney, "The Note's Sneak Peek," ABC News, 10/3/07)
But Hillary Has Had Trouble Adding Up Her Own Numbers For HillaryCare 2.0:
Her Plan Costs $110 Billion Annually, But She's Only Figured Out How To Pay For $87 Billion Of The Cost:
Hillary Plans To Raise Taxes On Those Earning Over $250,000, Which She Claims Would Raise $52 Billion Annually. "To pay for it, she would raise $52 billion a year by increasing taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, restoring tax rates to where they were when President Bush took office." (Laura Meckler and Jackie Calmes, "Clinton Health Plan Courts Business Allies," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/07)
"She Is Also Counting On $35 Billion In Savings To The Government Through A More Efficient Health System, Savings That May Or May Not Materialize." (Laura Meckler and Jackie Calmes, "Clinton Health Plan Courts Business Allies," The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/07)
Many Have Noted That Repeal Of Tax Cuts And Modernization Plans Will Not Cover Cost Of Universal Health Care:
U.S. News & World Report's James Pethokoukis: "Oh, And Remember That Raising Income Taxes On Americans Making Over $200,000 Will Bring In Only $50 Billion Or So, Which Is Already Being Spent Several Times Over By The Dem Presidential Candidates." (James Pethokoukis, "The Magic $50 Billion Tax Hike," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 6/20/07)
A House Democratic Aide Said There's Flawed Logic In Basing Programs On Rolling Back Tax Cuts, Because "There's Just No Way To Know What Revenues Will Be." "A House Democratic aide said proposing new programs that rely on the Bush tax cuts seems like flawed logic because 'there's just no way to know what revenues will be.'" (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't A fford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
"Watchdog Groups And Legislative Sources Said It Is Impossible To Know Whether The Money From The ... Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest 2 Percent Of Americans Will Be Available For A President To Spend On Other Priorities." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)
The Wall Street Journal: The Hillary Camp Projects $35 Billion In Savings From Modernizing Health Care Delivery, Which Is "Speculative, If Not Fanciful." "The rest of the estimated $110 billion per year in new government spending would be achieved by 'modernizing' health-care delivery and 'promoting wellness,' though this $35 billion in savings is speculative, if not fanciful." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
"Further Tax Hikes Would Be Required: That $110 Billion Is A Back-Of-The-Envelope Calculation, And Team Hillary Is Keeping The Specifics In Its Pocket." (Editorial, "HillaryCare's New Clothes," The Wall Street Journal, 9/19/07)
Experts Agree Hillary's Cost-Saving Health Care Reforms "Will Not Be Easy To Implement" And Could Be A Problem If Her "Subsidies End Up Costing Much More." "She has also unveiled a series of proposals over the past six months that encourage savings in the health sector to offset much of that new cost: improved efficiency, greater use of information technology, electronic medical records, improved quality of care and so on. Independent experts agree that big savings in those areas are possible, but caution that reform will not be easy to implement. But what if those ambitious savings do not come quickly, or if the subsidies end up costing much more?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
And In Reality, The Cost Could Be Much Closer To $200 Billion:
Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press: "Have You Ever Seen Any Federal Program That Did Not Cost Much More In Operation Than Estimated At The Beginning?" (Editorial, "Hillary Tax-And-Med Care," Chattanooga [TN] Times Free Press, 9/19/07)
Regina Herzlinger Of Harvard Business School: The Cost Of HillaryCare 2.0 Will Be "Closer To $150 Billion - 200 Billion Per Year." "Regina Herzlinger of Harvard Business School ... cautions that the cost of her approach may be closer to $150 billion-200 billion per year. If so, would the plan then require a vast expansion of Medicare or huge new taxes--Hillarycare by the back door, as some critics say?" ("If At First You Don't Succeed," The Economist, 9/22/07)
RE-LIVING HISTORY: Hillary's Tax Hikes For Her 1993 Universal Health Care Did Not Cover Costs:
"Little Was Said About The Most Controversial, And Difficult, Question: How To Pay For These Reforms?" (Haynes Johnson and David S. Broder, The System, 1996, p. 80)
"Any Way They Looked At It, The Reforms Were Going To Cost About $50 Billion To $100 Billion In The Short Run, Before The Savings Could Be Realized. Most Of The Tax Options Couldn't Come Close To Raising This Kind Of Money." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 189)
"In The Meeting When The Question Of Cost Arose, Hillary Casually Tossed Out The $100 Billion Figure. Senator Jay Rockefeller, A Close Administration Ally On Health Care Reform, Dropped His Jaw. If They Were Planning To Spend $100 Billion, A Large New Unpopular Tax Would Be Unavoidable." (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 190)
NOTE: Hillary Is Also Planning On Announcing $50 Billion In New Spending For An Energy Fund - Will She Say How She's Going To Pay For It?
Today, Hillary Will Also Pledge To Create A "$50-Billion Strategic Energy Fund." "The New York senator was to announce ... proposals of her science agenda in a speech in Washington on Thursday. ... As president, Clinton said she would ... Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels." (Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research," The Associated Press, 10/4/07)
Hillary: "I Have Tried To Set An Example On The Campaign By Explaining How I Am Going To Pay For My Top Priorities." ("Forum: Hillary Clinton Answers Your Questions," Newsweek, 10/2/07)
PDF Format
No comments:
Post a Comment