Ire Spond...So why didn't the President invite Romney over for a chat...he has no problem publicly plagiarizing Romney's body of work? Why not talk to him to find what did or did not work. It stated that no tax rise was needed because well they received Federal Money to get to where they needed? Who will subsidize the Federal Authority for such a venture...oh yes it will come through a tax increase.

Please an opt out for all states.

As for the economists...good to know Peter Orszag is on the job...given his role in the whole Fannie Freddie debacle there will eventually be no where to go but up.

The difference is States Rights versus Federal Mandate.

so txmom, sounds like Romney's advisors were at the table discussing this with the white house. Maybe Romney himself declined the offer and sent the advisors instead.

SecondSight1

The article provides their take that the national health care bill was formed after Romney's state health care. They provide things like "facts"... verification of meetings held... and "direct statements"... from Romney's health care creation team. Sounds pretty compelling to me.

This, versus your conspiracy theory of NBC's attempt to discredit and shift responsibility? You have no facts... just what you want to believe.

I agree with IRESPOND. The fact that Romney demonizes ANY national health care solution... saying:

“And on day one of my administration, I will grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.”

means that he, in the name of satisfying his Tea Party puppet-masters, will DO NOTHING on national heath care.

This, in my mind, disqualifies Romney as a viable GOP candidate.

Govt_Issue

The difference is States Rights versus Federal Mandate.

States are just as inept and corrupt as the federal government... maybe worse.

Why should states be so qualified to address health care? They can address it today and most haven't. Most have unbelievable health care debacles going on and rely on federal money to keep them even. Most haven't a clue as to what to do and, therefor, choose to do nothing. Is that what you advocate?

So why not "county" rights? Or city rights? Hell... lets just all go on our own and forget insurance altogether! Cash is king! LOL

The state's rights argument is bunk. The states have not had the wherewithal to address health care effectively to date... tell me how they would do it now.

How do you address state-to-state insurance coverage issues? How do you address drastic coverage changes between states? Cross-state corporate coverage? The 30+ million uninsured that reside in the less capable and less healthy states?

No answers. Just rancor.

Angie 1994...the article was pretty clear that he was not invited to discuss the plagiarized plan. This is most certainly a can of worms that will get loose and not bode well for Obama....

LmacT: The debate about at what level governmen either begins or stops beiong competent, is for a different vine. The simple fact is that the federal government has a specific set of powers/authoraties. The states have different (some similar) powers. The national mandate is NOT within the pervue of the federal powers. All insurance is STATE regulated. There is NO interstate commerce with insurance. This point has been argued before the supreme court previously, and ruled on. Obamacare is BLATENTLTY unconstitutional.

It is really simple, the individual state can mandate the purchase, the feds can not.

Some other time we can debate IF even sht state SHOULD institute a mandate.

This article is not news. We knew this when this whole disaster started. You have to ask yourself, why copy a plan that has caused Massachusetts to have the highest costs for health care in the United States? And still does not cover everyone........ So now the entire United States will suffer the same fate as Mass. (The intelligence levels in Washington continues to sink lower and lower.....)

And yet, they show Romney as a front runner in the polls. (*sigh*)

And Yes, I'm all for the states opting out of the mandates. Ohio will be voting on this in November.

allowing states to make their own laws is stupid at best. Why is it that every state has it's own traffic laws, it's own building codes (not to mention each county), it's own Education board. Medical board etc.? This is all utter BS.

Think about it - every state has to hire people to do make these laws. If these laws were all made at federal level, there will be fewer government employees, saving tax money.

Yep, the GOP is full of crap. Romneycare, Obamacare, HRC is not a bad thing. Does it need tweaking, most likely, but the fact reminds that we need a national health care model. No one here can tell me that their health care cost stayed the same for decades and decades. I have had an health care adjustment every years since I have been working. We the people of the United States have power in numbers and if we can stop bitching and moaning for one minute and realize that this should be about the good of the country and not the few. Our politicians have sold us out to various corporations and yet still we blindly follow, because we are promised that one day...just one day we might have enough money that we might need to hide from the government. Talk about drinking the kool-aid. It takes a disaster like 9/11 to get everyone to briefly be Americans and then after the years past, we are not back to making the very politicians we elected to look out for our best interest, drive their own agenda. I despise most of what the Tea Party stands for (sorry, racist undertones and a single minded fury that lacks common sense at times), but I admire them for starting a movement. Occupy (still leery about them, but I am watching and listening) is now on tap and we will see where that goes. We hear states rights this and states rights that, but we keep forgetting that the same politicians that are driving the car in DC has ties at home and they are still getting directions from their corporate handlers.

IRESPOND-2315268 Well said! I agree and feel the same way. Romney is caught between knowing what is right and catering to a witless mob that is his base. It must be psychically challenging to pretend to be a moron and deny your own history simply to get the Republican vote.

Healthcare reform=universal healthcare. We already have HMOs in place. Universal healthcare would weed out the doctors and hospitals who are in healthcare only for the money - our care would be much, much better for that. SSI and SSDI roles would lessen, because many, many families and individuals in this country turn to disability to stay well, stay alive. Without this and/or state medicaid, people - many of them children, have no insurance. It is not affordable. Insurance companies have gotten out of control.

The only problem I see here is that Americans are scared of change - changing the status quo. Why would you want to continue to pay those enormous premiums for your policies when they pay so little and pick and choose what they pay for? It would not be free - everyone would have a premium to pay.

Healthcare costs across the board would come down because the big paydays would be gone.

Why should a thirty day supply of just one of my son's meds cost $465? Why should a simple blood test to monitor med levels cost over $600? Why should mental healthcare be paid any differently than any other illness is? Why should a 4 hour visit to the ER for possible appendicitis cost over $8000? The answer is insurance=corporate greed.

Why should hard working, tax paying American families have to turn to bankruptcy because of excessive medical bills? We and many families have applied for and gotten SSI disability for our children in order to keep them alive. This would not have been necessary if costs were kept within reasonable limits.

Those who choose to keep their over priced, underpaying policies could. Think of America as a whole instead of thinking only of yourselves.

When you a the Governor of a state you do what your citizens want. Mass. wanted health care reform, Romney gave it to them. America wanted jobs, Obama gave them health care reform instead. Now that is in the "return" line, simple as that.

JCB: that simple, huh? So, tell me what have the 2010 GOP/TPer tsunami brought the people? There still are no jobs, but I distinctly remember the drum beat of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Instead we see an assault on education, health care, unions (some had it coming, but not all), women's rights, environmental regulations (Obama I am looking at you too) and what's left of the middle class.

No matter how you slice it, we need to have HRC reform on a national level. The price of staying alive is too great. The curative model is bankrupting us and making corporations a lot of money.

knightrider - are you suggesting that all laws for all parts of this country be written and enforced at the federal level? If this is the case, we should get rid of city, county and state governments all together. We can have one giant government run out of DC that knows what is needed for the people of Podunk, WY.

With your assessment, I could not disagree more.

Adam-1897760,

OK. So after the Supreme Court rules for or against your claim, will you support the judgement? ... or find another reason to demonize national health care?

Bigotry is alive and well in the U.S.!!!!! From the moment President Obama was elected the battle cry of the Republicans has been "Get the N----- out". To do this they have tried to block any progress in White House policy and any job creation in the market place (and they have succeeded) thanks to the Tea Party movement. But they have done it at the expense of the American people and the economy of the U.S.. Are we the voters going to stand for this manipulation of the American governmental system or are we going to show Congress that we have discovered their agenda and are not going to stand for their destroying our economy to further their bigotry? Maybe it is time that the American people took a real good look at the record of Congress in creating jobs bills and what they have done to block any progress in producing new jobs programs in the U.S.. Is it patriotic of Congress to destroy the American dream in order to remove the first black President of the U.S.? Incidentally, I am a white "free thinking" voter who did not vote for President Obama. But I will probably vote for him this time as he is the best hope for our future (given the choices we have from a bigoted Republican Party).

LMarcT: Why should states be so qualified to address health care?

Have you ever read the US Constitution with respect to the 10th amendment?

Typical Dems.

If it becomes unpopular it is no longer their fault, and if it becomes popular they are for it (as we have seen with their recent attempts at hijacking the Occupy Wall Street" protests for their own gain... even though it is their policies that have caused the protests to begin with).

Saying "look we were just copying from others" does not excuse their inability to recognize the disaster they created, nor their ignoring of the American people to force it through congress.

Leave it to MSNBC to pretend this actually a story instead of shameless propaganda, this was already old news a year ago.

wayne:

Maybe wanting Obama out has nothing to do with race. I voted for him originally, but now I regret it. Does that make me a racist? How about you? You didn't originally vote for him. Does that make you a racist? For a lot of us, race doesn't even factor into the equation.

And the fact that Obamacare is modeled after Romneycare isn't news. However, Romneycare was a state plan (and a bad one at that, which is why I've never supported Obamacare). It's about what the federal government can do, and what the state government can do.

I live in Massachusetts. I've seen what Romneycare has done. Our health care costs are the highest in the country. The budget for Romneycare has gone up and up each year (it was originally projected to be about $740 million per year, and I do believe last year's budget for it was $960 million, with $12 million of that to cover illegal immigrants in the state). They've even raised taxes in the state to try to cover the cost.

My coverage has dropped every year since Romneycare has gone into place, but my premiums have gone up. In 2005, I had a PPO with 80% out of network coverage with no deductible, and $20 copays. Now I have a HMO with no out of network coverage, a $1500 deductible for my coverage ($3000 for family coverage), and I have to pay out of pocket until I hit my deductible for medications, doctor's appointments, etc. My employer couldn't afford the PPO rates anymore, and had to drop us all to a HMO. All with paying a much higher premium than I had for my PPO insurance 6 years ago.

I know healthcare costs go up each year, it's a given, but those of us that pay for our own coverage have been hurt the most by this legislation. Yes, the uninsured rate has dropped drastically in MA. And I'm happy that those without coverage have it, but I've had to pay for it (along with others who pay for their own coverage), all while accepting less coverage for myself.

So I'm not happy to see Obamacare, nor am I happy with Romneycare. I don't care whose name is attached to it. This plan hasn't worked for MA, why would it work nationally?

This political division is killing America. We have to find common ground and work from there. That's how the 2 party system is supposed to work. It is not supposed to be so far to the right or left. Moderation in all things keeps us well and healthy. For pete's sake, I know these discussions are entertaining, but the hate and venom I see is disgraceful. Human welfare should not be a red or a blue issue. It should be a common cause. This ME, ONLY ME, attitude has got to go!

Obamacare and Romneycare move the US towards Universal care--which is cheaper and better quality than what we have now.

When EVERY other developed country in the world does it one way, and the US does it another, something is very likely wrong with the way the US does it.

EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY has universal health care, which is why their healthcare budgets are so much smaller than ours, plus their people are healthier.

Good. We need someone who knows how to dismantle Obama's healthcare plan.

Mitt Romney has been saying that all along. He knows what works and what does not.

Why not hire someone with actual experience for a change?

No answers. Just rancor--LMarcT #1.6

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'--- Amendment 10, Bill of Rights.

LMarcT, HERE is your answer...and this is something that I would expect a Constitutional Scholar to know.

Liberal Media is in desperate move, is shooting the all magazine to see what republican candidate gets the shoot. The front runner Romney is too dangerous for Obama's aspiration for a second term, and according to the polls he can beat Obama , Cain second in the list also can beat Obama oops , this is getting interesting. Obama is one term President. Obamanomics is a failure and the government transparency is darker than ever.

Mitt Romney could get more respect from the Democrats if he would admit that the country needs health care reform, and that we DO NOT need to start from scratch with a whole set of new ideas, wasting time and money.

Absolutely correct.

This whole idea of starting from scratch shows an incredible lack of intelligence and maturity. On top of that, those who say we need to "start over from scratch" have ZERO ideas for an entirely new program.

Anyone with half a brain (which basically excludes most conservatives) knows that it is far easier to get the government to agree on small changes... as opposed to a completely new program. If you want actual change, you change it piece by piece. If you want no change, but you want partisan talking points, you yell "start over from scratch".

RON PAUL 2012

oskar, when all else fails, blame the "liberal media". And, Romney is "too dangerous" for Obama??? Too funny. Wait until the evangelical nutcases get done with the Mormon Romney. Republicans are about to implode. Obama has nothing to worry about. Obama 2012.

So the claim is that Obama used Romney's Massachusetts health care law as a blueprint for his Obama care. Except that Romney's healthcare legislation was between 70 and 200 pages (depending on who you listen to) while Obama's monstrosity was some 2700 pages. Yes, there are parallels in the health care portion of Obama's bill but there are also over 2000 pages of new regulations, new taxes and fees, and other nefarious elements that have absolutely nothing
to do with health care.

Some have suggested that the health-care portion of Obama-care was simply a cover for what was in the other 2000 plus pages. There may be some truth to this because all the focus is on the health care portion of this legislation while with few exceptions, the rest of the legislation remains largely ignored.

You guys are all missing the point. This is Obama helping to undermine the Repube front runner. More turmoil on the Right!

Welcome to another four years Mr. President!

Obamacare is news today... because it is now the GOP's fault.

Obama's current stimulus bill (actually being voted on today) is not news because it is failing miserably.

Just the type of "journalism" America has come to expect from MSNObama.

Obama jobs bill faces likely Senate defeat

"Democrats hold a majority of seats in the 100-member chamber, but are believed to lack the 60 votes necessary to move forward with consideration of the bill."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/politics/jobs-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Liberals think that we are like them using all kind oc cards to win an election. Conservatives are more blind color ,and less worries about sex than liberals . Proof is the liberals throw , Oreo cookies to a conservative African American candidate or come with insults and harrasment to a conservative woman because is pro life. What a bunch of nut heads. The Democrat KKK is still alive even Sen Bird , his founder just die last year, he is still as Democrat hero.

Liberals think that we are like them using all kind oc cards to win an election. Conservatives are more blind color ,and less worries about sex than liberals . Proof is the liberals throw , Oreo cookies to a conservative African American candidate or come with insults and harrasment to a conservative woman because is pro life. What a bunch of nut heads. The Democrat KKK is still alive even Sen Bird , his founder just die last year, he is still as Democrat hero.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

pjam09

Know why some dems won't vote for it? Because the democrats have just as many millionaires as do the republicans in congress. They don't vote on anything that is going to impact their pocketbook, their bottom line. Both parties are to blame for not creating legislation that could benefit the whole nation. BOTH PARTIES. If congress has an agenda, then nothing that is introduced will pass UNLESS it goes along with their corporate interests. Nothing will change as long as BOTH parties are only concerned with their bottom line.

I like the Billy Madison quote, Newly.

The truth is that this is a recycled report, in order to destroy Romney's campaign. The truth is Democrats have been using this guy as an adviser for years, even named the Democrat Parties 'most influential health care expert.' Truth is he met with Romney only once. This is a story reported back in March 2010. And recycled again. All of these articles are thedailycandidate.com/

Romney's true top adviser was Edmund Haislmaier from the Heritage Foundation. He wrote a great article about it at the Heritage Foundation's Website, title: Mitt's Fitt

MagnoliaSimms what part of if you already have coverage (through your employer, self-financed whatever...) you get to keep it at no additional expense. Employers have always since I have been working (45 years now) seeked to improve their benefits for employees while reducing the cost of said perks. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Healthcare is as much a fact of life as eating and drinking. Your food is subsidized, your drinking water is taxed...welcome to the real world. The new healthcare law didn't go far enough and it should be a one-payor system, meaning we all pay into it and get the coverage we need when we need it.
Stop your whining, bithcing and moaning cause here's a news flash...We are all connected, and you are your brother's keeper like it or not. Got a problem with that? Suit God.

My coverage has dropped every year since Romneycare has gone into place, but my premiums have gone up. In 2005, I had a PPO with 80% out of network coverage with no deductible, and $20 copays. Now I have a HMO with no out of network coverage, a $1500 deductible for my coverage ($3000 for family coverage), and I have to pay out of pocket until I hit my deductible for medications, doctor's appointments, etc. My employer couldn't afford the PPO rates anymore, and had to drop us all to a HMO. All with paying a much higher premium than I had for my PPO insurance 6 years ago.

I know healthcare costs go up each year, it's a given, but those of us that pay for our own coverage have been hurt the most by this legislation. Yes, the uninsured rate has dropped drastically in MA. And I'm happy that those without coverage have it, but I've had to pay for it (along with others who pay for their own coverage), all while accepting less coverage for myself.

So I'm not happy to see Obamacare, nor am I happy with Romneycare. I don't care whose name is attached to it. This plan hasn't worked for MA, why would it work nationally?

Why is NBC telling us something that we've all known for 3 years? Oh wait, NBC belongs to GE, whose CEO is an Obama employee, and there is an election next year.

Factcheck is a public truth-seeking project that tries to help voters be better informed and less confused, a non-partisan non-profit funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. It also accepts public donations. Here are the bullet points on their findings on Massachusetts health reform:

-The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.

-The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.

-Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

-Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.

-Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.

-Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.

I am so sick and Gawad Dammed tired of people spouting the 10th amendment like its the end all be all of the Constitution....take a look at the 9th amendment...

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

how i read this is, those who espouse the 10th amendment to ever solution is not an excuse to deny or disparage rights retained by the people as a nation who want national healthcare...its our right if a majority of us want it.

Well, what if a majority wanted to return to slavery, real? Would that be OK? What if a majority wanted to say that everyone who had a nickname of "real" needed to pay all of their money to the government.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representive republic - for a good reason - so that the whim and tyranny of the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority.

@LMarcT

So why not "county" rights? Or city rights? Hell... lets just all go on our own and forget insurance altogether! Cash is king! LOL

That is exactly what should happen. Insurance companies should be outlawed, period! Then and only then will you see the cost of health care decrease as providers will have to set pricing on what the customer can afford to pay or go out of business.

Magnolia says..."In 2005, I had a PPO with 80% out of network coverage with no deductible, and $20 copays. Now I have a HMO with no out of network coverage, a $1500 deductible for my coverage ($3000 for family coverage)"....

And you are complaining?? We have no such Romneycare in Cali. Our family of 4 PPO is nearly $12,000 a year, the company pays half. We have to meet an annual $5k family deductible - only 2 years out of 7 we got to that deductible. Until the $5k is reached, a doctor's visit is $178 - no copay, just full price - until we meet our deductible. I asked the billing office what an uninsured person would be charged for a doctor's office at this "chain" of hospitals and clinics we are assigned to. She said she could not tell me, as they do NOT take uninsured people. How nice for them.

Meanwhile, the head of our HMO makes MILLIONS in salary and stock options. Why yes their stock options are quite nice, as the HMOs are profitable - skimming healthcare dollars in their "for profit" scam. Profit = less healthcare dollars.

Tweak Obamacare, I want a public option. As always, the well-to-do will be able to afford above the minimum services, but everyone should have - NOT FREE - some basic coverage and wellness.

Our 2 kids are on our policy thanks to Obamacare - NOT FREE - we pay for that. But if they do away with the national health care concept, and don't make EVERYONE who is working and able bodied pay - then I QUIT. We'll just drop our insurance, and if there is a sickness, we'll go to a clinic, or the ER but not give our real names. Why should I pay if Joe Blow refuses - more of that "it's not constitutional bullsh!t" - yet goes to the ER when he, or the kiddies, are sick.

The disabled, and those who are on Medicaid now - nothing changes - they will be covered for "free", or perhaps a copay on a sliding basis. But end the cherry-picking of the HMOs, who want to insure the healthy, but push the old, sick & injured onto Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare/Work comp - letting the taxpayer take the costs, the HMOs are off the hook, free to make more profit.

Cassandra:

Yes, I am complaining. I don't have a family of 4, I have me. So for me, I pay $240 per month for my health insurance, which is $2,880.00 per year, and I have a $1,500.00 deductible, where nothing is covered until I hit that deductible. I'm a relatively healthy 30 year old, so I pay for about two doctors appointments per year ($150 each visit), plus for two medications at $40 each per month. So that's $960 + $300 = $1,260.00. So unless I have something catastrophic happen (which hopefully will not happen), I will be paying for health insurance that doesn't cover anything.

Fantastic.

I'm not saying that healthcare reform isn't needed, and I'm not saying that people don't deserve to have health insurance. Everyone should have some kind of coverage, even basic coverage. Health care costs are getting out of control, and some kind of intervention is needed.

But Romneycare didn't address rising healthcare costs, which is why the healthcare costs in Massachusetts are the highest in the country, and is why our premiums have gone way up in the last few years. And because I work for a small company (less than 100 employees), our company had to drop our coverage to a HMO from the fantastic PPO we had (I'll admit, we had it good) because they couldn't afford the premiums for the PPO in Massachusetts anymore. We were given the option the first year in 2007, but the premium was triple what we had been paying for it, so we had to give it up.

So it looks like you and I are in similar situations... yet because of Romneycare, if I decided I wanted to drop my insurance coverage (which at 30, I wouldn't do... but at 20, I went without insurance for a while and nothing happened), I'd be hit with a fine come tax time.

I just don't have faith that the federal government can make this work, and that it will benefit anyone except the insurance companies.

Karen in Los Angeles "Good. We need someone who knows how to dismantle Obama's healthcare plan. Mitt Romney has been saying that all along. He knows what works and what does not. Why not hire someone with actual experience for a change?"

Excellent point. It appears that Romney is the more likely Republican nominee, so Obama's media arm (NBC) is starting the attacks early.

Romney has a very simple solution to Obamacare which is really quite simple and brilliant - He proposes merely granting waivers to all 50 States, which will effectively void the bill with no repeal legislation required.

Here is the President's already in action tax hikes with Obama-Care? It is time to repeal this "BOONDOGGLE" bill. Read below to see what is already in motion.

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014)

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014)

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013)

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018)

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011)

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011)

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka "Special Needs Kids Tax" (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010)

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010)

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately)

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010)

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014)

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013)

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012)

20. Obamacare "Black liquor" tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately)

21. Obamacare Codification of the "economic substance doctrine" (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately)

ATR(American for Tax Reform) provides the bill name and page number as well as explanations and charts.

Also notice how many of those tax increases are not set to go into effect until after the presidential election in 2012?

So I guess you missed the line that said the Massachusetts law did not raise taxes because it was paid for with Federal taxes. In other words, we are all paying for it but do not receive any of the benefits.

Actually, it is being paid for by money set aside for Mass, just like every other state gets from the fed. Mass just uses it for healthcare as opposed to a host of other projects.

Yes and with the National law, the money will be spent where it is supposed to be spent. Not on local politicians pet projects. That will help my premiums to go down and the free loaders to pay their share.

ir12, There is Constitutional law that says the House and the Senate must have a budget by a certain time, which Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid chose to ignore. If they feel that they can ignore the foundation of all of our laws, what makes you believe they will follow the law on making sure money for health care goes to health care? BTW, how much does the government owe the Social Security fund which it raided?

Obama has never had an original idea, relying on Reid, Pelosi, and others to inspire him! Now we find he also copies Republicans, including Romney, currently the most viable candidate that will be matched up against him in 2012.

Do you need further proof of BO's lack of leadership and vision?

Actually....it is the potus that is responsible for preparing the budget of the us....congress must then approve it....Obama has yet to do that....

Dixie: You are wrong. The president has ZERO constitutional responsibility towards writing the budget, except for signing it, and that can be made unnedded by a 2/3rds majority on the passing (veto proof).

The presidential budget has no force, except for the threat of fore (veto) it is a lsit of what the President wants/expects. The House writes the budget, and the submits it to the senate; who then passes or ammends and passes, then the senate and House versions are reconciled and voted upon. ONLY then does the President get his/her say.

PELOSI never wrote or passed a budget, REED never presented one to the Senate, OBAMA never proposed one, or saw one. Yet everyone blames the Senate Republicans for one not being enacted... go figure.

@Gary-302710

It's Eric Cantor's fault. He is a self-serving little weasel

Gary-302710

ir12, There is Constitutional law that says the House and the Senate must have a budget by a certain time, which Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid chose to ignore. If they feel that they can ignore the foundation of all of our laws, what makes you believe they will follow the law on making sure money for health care goes to health care?

Are you saying repubs never bent or ignored any constitutional laws? LOL!

Gary....you are wrong...you need to actually read the powers of the potus.....Obama has-not prepared a budget since he took office....and like I said above ....it is his job...

dixie, it clearly spells out in the Constitution that the HOUSE must come up with and pass the budget, then submit it to the Senate for a vote which upon passing is sent to the POTUS for either signing or veto. Then again, many people who are of the conservative bent who want to trumpet the Constitution seem not to have READ the Constitution, so let me quote the relevant part for you:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And here is IN ITS ENTIRETY the section of the Constitution that deals with the Executive Branch and it's powers:

Article II - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chusethe President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

But this information took me a whole 30 seconds to find by going to:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7

so it may have been too difficult to find. /sarc

CIRCULAR NO. A–11

PART 1

GENERAL INFORMATION

Executive Office of the

P

resident

Office of Manageme nt and B

udget

June

2008

. The budget consists of several volumes that set forth the President's financial proposal with

recommended priorities for allocating resources. The main

Budget

volume contains the President's

Budget message and other broad statements of policy. The

Appendix

contains detailed information by

agency, bureau or program group, budget accounts, programs, and activities. Other volumes, such as

Analytical Perspectives

Analytical Perspectives

volume of the most recent budget, "The Budget

view or download budget S ystem a nd Con cepts." Y ou can dget documents at the following Internet address:

The Budget and Accounting Act requires the President to submit a budget (see section

15.2

). The

President formally transmits his proposals for allocating resources to the Congress through the budget.

The Congress considers the recommendations and uses the information included in the budget as it drafts

and passes laws that affect spending and receipts. Through this process the Government decides how

much money to spend, what to spend it on, and how to raise the money it has decided to spend.

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

The budget focuses primarily on the budget year—the upcoming fiscal year for which the Congress needs

to make appropriations. However, it includes data for the most recently completed year, the current year,

and at least the four years following the budget year (outyears) in order to reflect the effect of budget

decisions over the longer term. In addition to proposed appropriations for the budget year, the budget

may include proposed changes to appropriations for the current year (supplementals and rescissions), and

legislative proposals that would affect the current year, the budget year, or the outyears.

The budget provides actual or estimated data (stated in millions or billions of dollars, depending on the

context) for the following:

•

The amount by account that each agency may obligate the Government to pay (budget authority)

and estimates of payments (outlays) by agency and account;

•

The amount of receipts each agency collects from various sources;

•

Budget authority, outlays, and receipts by major function of the Government, such as national

defense; (This is why we assign each budget account a functional classification code(s).)

•

Total budget authority, outlays, and receipts for the Government; and

•

The actual or estimated surplus (when receipts exceed outlays) or deficit (when outlays exceed

receipts).

The budget divides the Government totals for budget authority, outlays, and receipts into "on-budget"

amounts and "off-budget" amounts. The off-budget amounts include the transactions of the Social

Security trust funds and the Postal Service, which are excluded by law from the on-budget totals.

The budget arrays data in many different ways. For example, one section of the budget focuses solely on

Federal investment spending. Also, while the budget focuses primarily on dollars, it also includes data on

other resources, such as Federal employment levels.

The budget covers the agencies of all three branches of Government—Executive, Legislative, and

Judicial—and provides information on Government-sponsored enterprises. In accordance with law or

established practice, OMB includes information on agencies of the Legislative Branch, the Judicial

Branch, and certain Executive Branch agencies as submitted by those agencies without change. By

longstanding practice, the budget presents information about the Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System but does not include amounts for the Board in the budget totals, even though it is a

Government agency, because of the independent status of the System. The budget includes information

about the Government-sponsored enterprises, such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie

Mae), but does not include them in the budget totals because they are privately owned. (Section

25

discusses the applicability of Part 2 of this Circular to various agencies.)

The budget process occurs in three main phases:

•

Formulation

. During this phase, the Executive Branch prepares the President's Budget. OMB and

the Federal agencies begin preparing the next budget almost as soon as the President has sent the

last one to the Congress. OMB officially starts the process by sending planning guidance to

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

Executive Branch agencies in the spring. The President completes this phase by sending the

budget to the Congress on the first Monday in February, as specified in law, although occasionally

Presidents have sent it later for various reasons. For example, in a year with a transition between

outgoing and incoming Administrations, the timing of the President's Budget transmittal changes.

(President George W. Bush transmitted his first budget, the 2002 Budget, in April 2001.)

•

Congressional

. This phase starts in late January or February, when the Congress receives the

President's Budget. The Congress does not vote on the President's Budget itself, and it does not

enact a budget of its own, as such. It considers the President's Budget proposals, passes overall

revenue and spending plan called a "budget resolution," and enacts the regular appropriations acts

and other laws that control spending and receipts.

•

Execution.

This phase lasts for at least five fiscal years and includes two parts.

􀁠

The apportionment part pertains to funds appropriated for that fiscal year and to balances of

appropriations made in prior years that remain available for obligation. At the beginning of

the fiscal year, and at such other times as necessary, OMB apportions funds—that is, specifies

the amount of funds that an agency may use by time period, program, project, or activity—to

Executive Branch agencies. Throughout the year, agencies hire people, enter into contracts,

and enter into grant agreements, etc., in order to carry out their programs, projects, and

activities. These actions use up the available funds by obligating the Federal Government to

make outlays, immediately or in the future.

􀁠

The reporting and outlay part lasts until funds are canceled (one-year and multiple-year funds

are canceled at the end of the fifth year after the funds expire for new obligations) or until

funds are totally disbursed (for no-year funds). Note: the canceled phase of annual and multiyear

authority (see section

20.4(c)

) or cancellations of budgetary resources in no-year accounts

pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1555 should not be confused with cancellations as a type of reduction

(see section

20.4(i)

).

The following tables highlight the major events in each of the phases of the budget process. These tables

show the planned timing or, when applicable, the timing specified in law. The actual timing may vary

from the plan. For example, the Congress frequently does not enact all appropriations acts by the start of

the fiscal year, and on several occasions the President has submitted the budget later than specified for

various reasons, including late enactment of appropriations for the previous fiscal year or a change in

Administrations. Since budget cycles overlap, we must begin the next cycle before completing the last

one.

OMB issues Spring planning guidance to Executive Branch agencies for the upcoming

budget. The OMB Director issues a letter to the head of each agency providing policy

guidance for the agency's budget request. Absent more specific guidance, the outyear

estimates included in the previous budget serve as a starting point for the next budget.

This begins the process of formulating the budget the President will submit the

following February.

Spring

OMB and the Executive Branch agencies discuss budget issues and options. OMB

works with the agencies to:

Identify major issues for the upcoming budget;

Develop and analyze options for the upcoming Fall review; and

Spring and Summer

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

Plan for the analysis of issues that will need decisions in the future.

OMB issues Circular No. A–11 to all Federal agencies. This Circular provides detailed

instructions for submitting budget data and materials.

July

Executive Branch agencies (except those not subject to Executive Branch review)

make budget submissions. See section 25.

September*

Fiscal year begins. The just completed budget cycle focused on this fiscal year. It was

the "budget year" in that cycle and is the "current year" in this cycle.

October 1

OMB conducts its Fall review. OMB staff analyzes agency budget proposals in light

of Presidential priorities, program performance, and budget constraints. They raise

issues and present options to the Director and other OMB policy officials for their

decisions.

October–November

OMB briefs the President and senior advisors on proposed budget policies. The OMB

Director recommends a complete set of budget proposals to the President after OMB

has reviewed all agency requests and considered overall budget policies.

Late November

Passback. OMB usually informs all Executive Branch agencies at the same time about

the decisions on their budget requests.

Late November

All agencies, including Legislative and Judicial Branch agencies, enter MAX computer

data and submit print materials and additional data. This process begins immediately

after passback and continues until OMB must "lock" agencies out of the database in

order to meet the printing deadline.

Late November to

early January *

Executive Branch agencies may appeal to OMB and the President. An agency head

may ask OMB to reverse or modify certain decisions. In most cases, OMB and the

agency head resolve such issues and, if not, work together to present them to the

President for a decision.

December *

Agencies prepare and OMB reviews congressional budget justification materials.

Agencies prepare the budget justification materials they need to explain their budget

requests to the responsible congressional subcommittees.

January

President transmits the budget to the Congress. First Monday in

February

*OMB provides specific deadlines for this activity.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports to Budget Committees on the economic and

budget outlook.

January

CBO reestimates the President's Budget based on their economic and technical

assumptions.

February

Other committees submit "views and estimates" to House and Senate Budget Committees.

Committees indicate their preferences regarding budgetary matters for which they are

responsible.

Within 6 weeks of

budget transmittal

The Congress completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget. The Congress

commits itself to broad spending and revenue levels by passing a budget resolution.

April 15

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

The Congress needs to complete action on appropriations bills for the upcoming fiscal

year or provides a "continuing resolution" (a stop-gap appropriation law).

September 30

Fiscal year begins. October 1

OMB apportions funds made available in the annual appropriations process and other

available funds. Agencies submit apportionment requests to OMB for each budget

account by

August 21 or within 10 calendar days

after the approval of the appropriation,

whichever is later. OMB approves or modifies the apportionment specifying the

amount of funds agencies may use by time period, program, project, or activity.

September 10 (or

within 30 days after

approval of a

spending bill)

Agencies incur obligations and make outlays to carry out the funded programs, projects,

and activities. Agencies hire people, enter into contracts, and enter into grant

agreements, etc., in order to carry out their programs, projects, and activities.

Agencies record obligations and outlays pursuant to administrative control of funds

procedures (see Appendix H), report to Treasury (see the Treasury Fiscal Requirements

Manual and section 130), and prepare financial statements.

Throughout the

fiscal year

Fiscal year ends. September 30

Expired phase (no-year funds do not have an expired phase). Agencies disburse against

obligated balances and adjust obligated balances to reflect actual obligations during the

period of availability.

Agencies continue to record obligations and outlays pursuant to administrative control

of funds procedures, report to Treasury, and prepare financial statements.

Until September 30,

fifth year after funds

expire.

The law requires the President to send a report to the Congress updating budget estimates on or before

July 15th. This report contains revised budget estimates resulting from changes in economic

assumptions, technical reestimates, Presidential initiatives, and completed congressional actions that have

occurred since transmittal of the budget. Your OMB representative will provide guidance on the

development of these estimates at the appropriate time.

The central financial agencies are:

•

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in the Executive Office of the President;

•

The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (FMS);

•

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in the Legislative Branch; and

•

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in the Legislative Branch.

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

OMB's predominant mission is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the President’s

Budget and to supervise its administration by the Executive Branch agencies. OMB evaluates the

effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands among

agencies, and sets funding priorities. OMB ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed

legislation are consistent with the President's Budget and with Administration policies.

In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the Administration's procurement, financial management, and

information and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, OMB's primary role is to improve

administrative management, develop better performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and

reduce any unnecessary burdens on the public.

For further information, refer to the OMB web site at

.

Treasury, acting through FMS:

•

Disburses 950 million Federal payments like Social Security, veterans' benefits, and income tax

refunds to more than 100 million people; (The Defense Department does not use FMS to disburse

its funds.)

•

Collects more than $2 trillion in Federal revenues;

•

Oversees a daily cash flow of $10 billion;

•

Provides centralized debt collection services to most Federal agencies; and

•

Provides Government-wide accounting and reporting.

FMS gathers and publishes Government-wide financial information that is used by the public and private

sectors to monitor the Government's financial status and establish fiscal and monetary policies. These

publications include: the Daily Treasury Statement; the Monthly Treasury Statement; the Treasury

Bulletin; the Combined Statement; and the Financial Report of the U.S. Government, which is the Federal

Government's set of audited financial statements, a requirement of the Government Management and

Reform Act of 1994.

For further information, refer to the FMS web site at

.

CBO was created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. CBO's mission is

to provide the Congress with the objective, timely, non-partisan analyses needed for economic and budget

decisions and with the information and estimates required for the congressional budget process. CBO

prepares analyses and estimates relating to the budget and the economy and presents options and

alternatives for the Congress to consider but does not make recommendations on policy. CBO’s services

can be grouped into four categories: helping the Congress formulate a budget plan; helping it stay within

that plan; helping it assess the impact of Federal mandates; and helping it consider issues related to the

budget and economic policy.

For further information, refer to the CBO web site at

.

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

GAO is the investigative arm of the Congress. GAO helps the Congress meet its Constitutional

responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the Federal Government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds, evaluates Federal programs and activities, and

provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. In this context, GAO works to continuously improve the

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Federal Government through financial audits, program

reviews and evaluations, analyses, legal opinions, investigations, and other services. GAO's activities are

designed to ensure the Executive Branch's accountability to the Congress under the Constitution and the

Government's accountability to the American people. GAO is dedicated to good government through its

commitment to the core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

For further information, refer to the GAO web site at

.

Here are a few examples:

•

After OMB submits the President's Budget, CBO is responsible for re-estimating the budget.

•

Both OMB and CBO score the costs of legislation (both appropriations and direct spending

included in authorization bills). While Budget Committees have the ultimate responsibility for

determining the scoring effects of legislation for Congressional enforcement, they typically rely on

CBO estimates during congressional consideration of individual bills to ensure that they are

consistent with the budget resolution totals. The President uses OMB estimates to determine the

costs of budget-related legislation. OMB reconciles or explains differences between the two sets

of discretionary estimates.

•

OMB and FMS work together to establish any new Treasury accounts, both during the preparation

of the Budget and after bills become laws.

•

OMB provides its scoring to FMS to assist in FMS' responsibility to prepare warrants.

•

OMB and FMS work together to estimate actual outlays during the course of a year.

•

FMS gathers financial information through FACTS II (Federal Agencies' Centralized Trial-

Balance System) that allows agencies to submit one set of accounting data (mostly budgetary,

some proprietary) that fulfills the needs of the SF 133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary

Resources, the FMS 2108 Year-End Closing Statement, and the prior-year column of the Program

and Financing schedule in the President's Budget.

•

OMB and FMS worked together to develop the FACTS II systems. FMS develops U.S. Standard

General Ledger guidance to comply with OMB definitions.

•

Both FMS and GAO provide guidelines used by financial managers as they account for Federal

finances.

•

OMB uses GAO audits and evaluations as part of its review of agency programs.

and Historical Tables

, provide complementary views of the budget. Most of the

information contained in the budget is, or is based on, information you submit for your agency and

programs in response to this Circular.

The term "budget" can mean other things in other contexts. It often refers to the full receipt and outlay

proposals rather than the volumes in which these amounts are published. Some people refer collectively

to the budget resolution and revenue and spending bills that the Congress passes, which we describe

below, as the "congressional budget." Ultimately, the Congress and the President enact many laws that

control the Government's receipts and spending, which we sometimes refer to collectively as the budget,

as in "enacting the budget."

This section provides a broad overview of the budget process. You can read more about the budget

process in a chapter of the

SECTION 10—OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

In this Circular, the term

Yes and with the National law, the money will be spent where it is supposed to be spent. Not on local politicians pet projects

Really? Have you been watching the fed gobment for the last 20 years?

Dear GoUSA,

Ah yes, the myth of States Rights. You really need to read the Constitution. There are no States Rights (or Federal Rights). In facts all rights belong strictly to the people. There are powers vested in the Federal and State governments by the consent of the governed (that means we, the people), but none that make the state supreme over the federal.

United States federal budget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation,search

Part of a series of articles on

United States
budget and debt topics

Major dimensions

Federal budget ·Public debt
Expenditures ·Taxation
Economy ·Financial position

Military budget

Programs

Medicare ·Social Security

Contemporary issues

Health care reform ·Social Security debate
Subprime mortgage crisis
Bush tax cuts ·Starve the beast
Bowles-Simpson Commission

Debt-ceiling crisis

Terminology

Cumulative deficit = Debt

Inflation ·Balance of payments

v · d · e

Fiscal Year 2010 U.S. Federal Spending Projections – Cash or Budget Basis.

Fiscal Year 2010 U.S. Federal Receipts.

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

Just FYI folks THE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES DOES IN FACT PROPOSE THE BUDGET AND NOT CONGRESS. NUFF SAID ON THIS PETTY ISSUE.

EXACTLY HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE ANYWAY?

CAL USA...you tell them...the states virtually have no rights if one reads the whole constitution....the individual has more rights than the state

YACKETY YACK! More lies from Obozo and his administration! TRUTH is the LAST thing to come from Obozo and his cronies in the west wing! Afraid of Romney much??? With Christie's endorsement...Obozo's desperately losing Independent voters like his campaign has sprung a DAM BREAK!!! SAY GOODBYE BOZO!!! your OUTTA THERE!!!

Second sentence, first post in thread: "States can do things that the federal government cannot."

Nations are states by definition.

I guess Republicans must want a new world order so the United States can gain a sugar daddy that can do what Romney's did.

After all, Romneycare- a parasitic program paid for in part by people who can't even use it- is funded in part by tax revenues from the federal government.

Once again, the Right shows its true colors. Privilege is okay if only me and mine get it on our dime- but it's a travesty if we get something on theirs.

~Knight

In simple terms, the President 'proposes' a Budget, which is typically ignored by Congress.

Then the House passes their own version, which is sent to the Senate for passage (or amendment), and then if there are changes in the Senate, it is reconciled in a 'Joint Conference Committee' and passed in both houses and sent to the President for signature.

The Republicans in the House passed a 2012 Budget about 6 months ago, but Harry Reid has refused to address the Budget on a timely basis (which he also did for the last 3 years, even when the Democrats controlled everything). Reid and Pelosi also refused to pass a Budget on time for 2009 and waited until Obama took office, passed the $862 Billion 'Stimulus' bill, and then passed the 2009 Budget, which Obama signed in March of 2009.

People who try to blame the huge Deficit for 2009 on Bush ignore this simple truth.

You do realize that Medicare is broke? That it's bankrupting hospitals because it reimburses for visits, procedures, lab tests, etc. below their actual cost and the hospital then has to eat the rest? There are physicians and hospitals that refuse to take Medicare patients based on that. They can't afford to.

Fix what's broke in Medicare first THEN pattern nation-wide health care after it.

Eliminate Medicare. It's only for old people, and they don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Think how much better things would be for the rest of us if everybody over the age of 65 just...died. More money and jobs for the younger generation.

It will always lead back to Bush.

Severed Head in a Jar

"Think how much better things would be for the rest of us if everybody over the age of 65 just...died"

I suppose that you look to hitler as your mentor.

Severed Head in a Jar!

Just another impotent person sitting behind a computer who can say what he or she wants to insight comments. Worthless.

Um, SHIAJ, there are people who are disabled and receiving SSD who are on Medicare ... and they are NOT over the age of 65. I am 42 and worked from the time I was 14 as a babysitter and taking care of my own family (cooking, taking care of my sister etc) and then on the books from the age of 18 until I could no longer work at 35 because of medical disabilities. I PAID INTO Social Security and Medicare the entire time I worked I worked on the books. I have a 5 year old son who I am the primary caregiver for so I need to stay healthy. I am on Medicare.

But I suppose that the conservative ideologists would prefer that all Senior Citizens and disabled should just die - much as the disabled were euthanized in Germany in the late 1930's and early to mid-1940's. Apparently you ascribe to the theory that we don't contribute to society for some reason and we should just disappear. Hmm ... I don't think your theory is correct.

Hey, I don't know SHIAJ and I didn't bother to click his handle to read his previous posts, but I'd wager that this one was sarcasm...and funny too.

Have Alan Grayson explain again the Republican Health Care Plan.

The point is the problem was never the Affordable Health Care Act - it was that Obama got it passed.

AncientGreek,

At least in my case, the problem is that it's a federal mandate and it tramples all over states rights. Romney used this in HIS state, where his constituents wanted it. The Presidents health care reform tramples all over the States rights. I am in favor of states doing this if they want, but a federal mandate is extreme IMO.

No worry, the republicans are doing a great job of making all of the leading candidates unelectable. Democrats can just sit back and watch them all chew each other up. Romney was probably the only one with a chance ( at least at this point in the process ) and now the republicans are turning enough of the electorate against him that the chance is squashed. Perry would carry Texas and Arizona, thats about it. Who else is left ? Cain is interesting but does not have the following. If they would let Buddy Roemer get involved that would also be interesting, he is certainly qualified, but would not carry the extreme right of the party because he believes in compromise and negotiation. Republicans have no chance unless Obama gets caught in the Oval Office with an intern, and even that might not be enough.

AncientGeek

Obama got it rammed through not passed. Passed would indicate it was bipartisan not pushed through based on majority rule.

ancientGeek - "The point is the problem was never the Affordable Health Care Act - it was that Obama got it passed"

So what is new about this that you didn't know a year ago? The point is that it is re-election time, and rather than having accomplishments to celebrate, the best they can come up with is blaming others for what Obama has done.

This is like a child who failed a test saying "well it's not my fault because I copied off my neighbor".

P.S.

I can't wait for the MSNBC "Obama got Osama" miniseries/movie/video game/ merchandising due out next fall.

Knight, Obama didn't ram hard enough - there should have had a public option shoved down the throats of Republicans. Republicans had no intention of supporting any plan proposed by the president. Why even try? Tea Partiers don't want to compromise. Great. No compromises, time for Democrats to get a backbone and get things done.

I guess tom you believe that MSNBC is correct in its reporting, if it can do damage to your god the current 'front runner' of the republican nominating process

I agree, Rev, that there is absolutely no guarantee that employers will pay employees more because they are no longer offering health insurance. While I don't agree that employers are teh proper place to receive health insurance benefits, the cat has been out of the bag too long to easily change this paradigm.

The LDS church won't allow it.

you mean LSD church right? :)

It is different because IT DOES NOT WORK!

The primary goal of health care "reform" in MA and for ObamaCare is not to deliver health care to the the people. The primary goal is the preservation of the health insurance and for-profit hospital industry. Because this of they didn't build on a model proven in the US and around the (Medicare- Yes it is expensive because it currently only covers the people the insurance industry wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole unless the government guarantees them a profit as with Medicare "Advantage") . Instead they built it on the theories of an economist from MIT.

What we have ended up with is an expensive mess. MA had been free of the disease of for-profit healthcare. We now have a Wall Street hedge fund buying hospitals so they too can feed on RomneyCare.

Something else amazing about the Republicans opposing to the mandate to purchase Health Insurance, a rupublican put it in the bill along with 150 other provisions. So they could later augue against it.

The only thing wrong with the Health Care Plan is it did not have a public option in it or a universal plan, to stop the corrupt insurance companies from screwing us.

Creating a Universal health care plan with retirement and anything else a person needs combined into it and remove the 150 amendments the GOP placed in the bill to try to gum up the works.

Don't worry you still have your welfare card!... By the way how long do you plan to stay on welfare!, The rest of your life!???????....

Please take some time to be a little less closed minded. Your analysis is flawed because you determined the results prior to looking at the data.

First of all, you don't have to pay auto insurance, you can simply chose not to drive. What is a similar option with healthcare?

Secondly, if you don't like a state law, you can choose to live in another state while remaining a US citizen.

Third, Republicans are not all the same so pigeon holing them as you did only makes you look intelligent to the like minded. State rights re completely different than federal rights. What they did in the massively liberal state of MA is irrelevant to a republican in another state.

Racist? STFU. In the first place, the president isn't really black, he was born to a white mother, barely knew his father and was raised by his white banker grand parents in Hawaii where being white is more likely to find you being persecuted.

On a personal note, I'm 57 years old and had health insurance all of my adult life, I've been to the doctor maybe 5 times including birth. Somebody actually think there aren't more like me? So, if somebody is born, is healthy, lives to 75 years old and only needs a doctor the last week of his life, he should be forced to buy insurance for 75 years anyway? Why is that again?

Because tomorrow you could be diagnosed with something like cancer, ALS, or some other life-threatenening and expensive disease. That's why it's called insurance.

Clueless - it's the "I can't be forced" to buy insurance idiots like you that have me saying - if they don't make everyone able and working pay for healthcare, I QUIT. You are 57, old enough to make the Repug cut-off date of Medicare vouchers when you age into the system. I want Medicare for everyone - NOT FREE.

I think we had that war already. Look up " American Civil War".

BCHIO : one of the things that happened during the founding of this country was that progressive liberals minded people broke free from the tyranny of status quo conservative jack asses....

Look like you are just another of those racist backward conservative CLOWNS ....

Exactly--it's inevitable that this is where the country needs to head.

Brilliant. Why don't you stop wasting time and money looking for a reliable, practicle car when you can buy the beat-up, oil-guzzling, rusty, bald-tired pinto because it was shown to you first and the salesman said you needed it?

Actually, healthcare as it stands today benefits the 1%--the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

All this talk about benefits to insurance companies. Do you realize the profit margin in the health insurance industry is around 3%? Compare the to Apple or Microsoft and you will see a difference of about 25%.

The cost of health care itself is extremely high. An average room and board chage for a stay in the ICU is around $4,000 per day. What is included in this charge - your bed, your nursing care and that is about it. All other items are billed separately.

If you want to control the cost of health care, you need to review health care and not insurance.

This is a joke, right? NEWT was the most divisive of Speakers of the House. America could not stand a NEWT administration.

It doesnt address reform either!

Look up the Word Socialist and Then Tell me Obammy is NOT a SOCIALIST!... You do not even know the MEANING OF THE WORD!...

Obama not a Socialist? Obama a moderate? HA! HA! HA! LOL! You funny people! Great for Joke of the day! LOL!

I studied sociology in college. I know the definition of socialism and the current President doesn't even come close. In fact, he's probably the most moderate President ever to represent the Democratic party. He keeps reaching across party lines and extending a hand to conservatives. Their response is deafening silence.

I suggest books instead of Fox News. That should help.

Janierock...........You funny dude!..............You killing me! LOL!.........What colege?........In Kenya?

- Are production facilities state owned or owned cooperatively by the people and the government? Have you ever once heard the President advocate government takeover of private industry? (regulation doesn't count)

-Has your paycheck been taken away and distributed back to you based on a merit system? Have you ever heard the President advocate this system? (no, fair taxation does not count)

This is socialism. Perhaps you may want to find a new word to fit the President's policies. I'd look at "moderate" and I think you'll find that suits him just fine.

Yes, at my college in Kenya they taught me to spell college, which was nice. They also taught me the definition of socialism.

janierock

I studied sociology in college. I know the definition of socialism and the current President doesn't even come close. In fact, he's probably the most moderate President ever to represent the Democratic party. He keeps reaching across party lines and extending a hand to conservatives. Their response is deafening silence.

I suggest books instead of Fox News. That should help.

Made me spit coffee all over my monitor! The only time this administration reaches across the party line is to shove something at them. PASS this NOW. Sorry, but BO has failed to show ANY signs of a true leader. He is merely a great campaigner.

IF he were so 'open', as you suggest...why didn't he consult with Romney regarding Health Care Plans and what worked and what didn't at the state level? I can think of MANY reasons why he wouldn't.

What the President actually did was send up a bi-partisan plan that had been pitched by conservatives in the past. Just like the jobs bill. What he's doing is taking past conservative ideas and pitching them again because he knows there are good conservative ideas out there that never saw the light of day. They were killed by the ACTUAL far left.

Conservatives lie their asses off when they try to disclaim these ideas. Both the jobs plan AND the health plan were conservative ideas FIRST!

janierock - your efforts are commendable but you should know by now that there is no point in trying to convince people that have already decided to pledge their minds to fox news to do any research or open their minds to any logical information that may heaven forbid cause them to think for themselves. While I do support Obama, if any republican poster here were to back up any of their statements with PROVABLE facts, people like you and I would accept it, even if it was against our president. But these folks, if fox news told them enough times that Barack Obama was ORANGE, you'd never convince them otherwise. Again, you get an "A" for effort but unfortunately you are wasting your time.

P.S. To any republican who opposes the health care law:

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the exact lines in that law that are bad for the country. Not some opinion like, "it will bankrupt us", or "it will do this or that". Show me the ACTUAL LINE ITEMS in the law that you do not like and tell me why they are bad for the country. Still waiting...

A rather unique approach...make it the 'other party's' idea FIRST.

What was presented in the past may not work for the present and future.

CMS5

That is true, sometimes what made sense in the past doesn't make sense going forward. However, the best way to expose a political party's agenda of obstruction is to capitalize on their determination to oppose you no matter what, by proposing laws incorporating their own ideas. When they say no to things that they favor, just to spite you, the public begins to see what their objectives really are.

Obama is an utter moderate. The "socialist" label was created by Repubs along with the "where's his birth certicate," and "He's a closet muslim" labels.

hboogy

Even IF those ideas no longer work?

If Romney's state level plan was operating with success, I could understand that those opposing this Health Insurance Act are merely 'nay saying' anything that comes from this administration and are behaving as you portray. That should be brought before the public.

Since the state level plan is NOT operating with success...and the party who had the idea 'first' didn't clamor for credit...could it be that the idea isn't all that they are portraying.

CMS5 - That is absolutely a possibility, no denying that. However, Mitt Romney finds himself in a bit of a tight spot, as it appears that he not only continues to take credit for signing this model of health care into law in Mass., but is now trying to pull back his declaration both verbally and in his book that this would be a good model for the rest of the country. At present, the only way that he can criticize the president without also targeting himself is to indicate that he thinks that this model would be beneficial to his state but not the country. If it turns out that the law is not working in Mass., that is unfortunate because there do appear to be some good things in it. The following is a clip from the story:

It cited a line that Romney had deleted this year from the paperback edition of his book, “No Apology: The CASE for American Greatness,” discussing the Massachusetts law which read: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Also, there is one thing I will freely admit I don't understand about this whole healthcare thing. I'd be grateful if you or anyone else with more knowledge could educate me. Since the law mandates that everyone must purchase insurance, I would think the Republican party would love that part because all of the ER visits by uninsured people has to be paid for by someone, and I would think think that it's likely state and federal tax dollars. If everybody HAS to buy insurance, wouldn't that mean less of their tax dollars paying for people who don't have insurance?

hboogy - It is quite possible that the Mass. law is something that should be looked at by each state individually. Take what works...throw out what doesn't.

As for the Health Insurance Act - Yes, everyone will be mandated to purchase a Health Insurance Policy. That mandate doesn't mean that everyone will. They can just pay the 'penalty', which has been recently revealed as a TAX. That doesn't mean they will be denied care. Which leaves us in the same boat.

Mass. is discovering that people who wait and rather than seeing their primary care giver - end up in ER's - still do that even WITH insurance. That doesn't help lower costs.

The Insurance Companies will love this act. They will profit. While they must now cover pre-existing conditions...there will be a high-risk pool to fund that change. More people will purchase their product. Those 20 somethings who are extremely healthy and prefer to spend $$ for a keg party rather than buy something they wouldn't use, like health insurance, will add to the Insurance Companies profit.

In the end...will healthcare costs go down, or are we just shifting how we see those costs?

Excellent points. In the end, it really is going to be a matter of the insurance companies themselves. I have always liked the idea of consumers being able to shop around and buy insurance across state lines. The best way to defeat an enemy is to turn them against themselves. Competition brings down prices. If we were all able to buy health insurance from wherever we wanted in the country, they would then have to really compete, and i think that would bode well for consumers.

Now that I think about it, that really could have gone a long way toward remedying some of the ills that was targeted with these new laws (both Obama and Romney's). Because if they have to compete against each other I'm sure a lot of the unfair practices they have been accused of will start to go away because they can no longer bank on a minimum guaranteed base of customers.

If healthcare reform is hardly a 'success' at the state level, just what does the rest of the country have to look forward to?

With most of the people in MA insured, it has brought costs down as predicted. While it may not be a raving success, it's certainly so much better than what was there before.

Bart Prove it!!!! That is a bold faced lie !!! I am a resident of Massachusetts and pay for my own health insurance. And since the implementation of reform, my monthly fee for coverage has tripled. And I have no children or pre existing conditions. You lie , just like the president and that d bag nancy pilosi!

He's probably so mad that he may spit...or he may regroup for a bit...then he will be back with a goal of an Oval Office in which to sit.

Just like a Liberal Socialist to only tell Half of the Truth!... First you have to Challenge the LAW before it can be Brought up to the COURT!.. Since the Socialist have been in POWER since 2006 no one has DONE THAT! Until NOW!...Obammycare Will be brought DOWN by the court and be GONE!...

Dream on

BCOHIO.. are you saying that is all these years, NO conservative group has bothered to challenge Romneycare?? I wonder why!! Immediately after the passing of Obamacare, there were like 24 states ( all with GOP governors) who challenged the HC law. You guys musta dropped the ball on Romneycare! UNLESS you knew that the law was legal! Remember, Romneycare was universally PRAISED by the GOP AND the Heritage Foundation AND probly many OTHER conservative groups! I frankly dont know what will happen to Obama's plan as long as those 2 crooks on the USSC refuse to recuse themselves! There should be some mechaism to FORCE recusal if necessary when there is obvious bias!

Liberal socialist? Are you making up names as you froth at the mouth?

Obamacare WILL survive the courts and become the law of the land.

10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Obamacare by any reasonable definition is unconstitutional.

If "he don't play no political game" then he wouldn't make much of a politician then, would he?

He makes bad pizza. Don't want his sauce in the White House.

I'm a surgeon. I can't wait for universal Health Care, because when that day comes, I am simply going to stop working hard. Lower reimbursement, thereby removing my incentive to work hard! Hell, I've only been golfing once in the past 8 years. I'll simply accept that my salary is going to be less, while you accept that your wait is going to be longer. I remember during my residency in Michigan, seeing people from Canada, who due to excessive wait times, crossed the border and paid out of pocket for elective cases. Why? Because the Canadian doctors don't put in the hours we do in this country due to withering payments. So go on and plead for universal health care - just don't cry when you get what you think you want.

Nobody will want to be in the medical field. There goes the Medical Schools. Oh I forgot! We will import more Indian Doctors. Yea! That's the ticket!

These are amusing comments, Joe and "Poor"; actual doctors, nearly unanimously, support universal health care.

Just because you dont like Obama or Dems doesnt mean it will be a bad law. My family doctor says he will make more from universal health care. I have friends in Canada that LOVE the health care they have and never want it to change. We are the only industrialised country NOT to have Universal, so we must be doing something wrong.

Where doyou get that "actual" doctors nearly unanimously support universal health care? Is that from the AMA?

That is like saying that almost all police offices support extreme gun laws. The rank and file does not even if the police chiefs do.

Rick-

The AMA speaks for less than 40% of physicians. FACT.

I guess i must have dreamt thos six years of residency and fellowship, since i am not an "actual" doctor. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yea, but Obumer is great at goof "er" golf. ...................NOT!

So the President has to come up with a completely original health plan for you to respect it? How about "aliens will come from outer space and health us all for free"!

Actually, both Romney and Obama's plans are based on years of health policy research and recommendations from experts....duh.

As for the economy--Obama has done nothing but compromise with Republicans on all his budget battles. This is the Republican economy!

Bart any facts ? or just sayin ?

I am better off.

Liberals would like Romney if he stopped backing away from his own plan and saying it was a mistake. He also backed away from supporting prochoice and gay marriage. He's a moving target.

Michael - Those federal funds they are talking about are funds given to all states, Mass. just earmarked them for healthcare while the other states are using them in their own way.

Uh ... yeah, right!

The news is buzzing about the latest bailout – not the controversial measure in Congress to buy bad mortgages, but the gift of more taxpayer money to the state of Massachusetts for health care.

The Boston Globe called it “a federal promise of $10.6 billion over the next three years,” and The New York Times explained that “The agreement will allow the state to spend up to $21.2 billion on the program over the next three years, an increase of $4.3 billion over the initial three-year period.”

Let's face it--Romneycare and Obamacare are the same because Obamacare is a moderate Republican plan.

Mitt Romney has publicly stated numerous times that what might be good for one state isn't necessarily a good thing for a whole country. It's a simple concept so I would think liberals could understand it.

you and thinking aren't typically used in the same sentence are they?

It is a good idea Republicans and Democrats alike considered until it became an attack on Obama as far as implementing it is concerned. That it is "good for people in Massachusetts" (good health care), but bad for the rest of the nation, is the craziest thing I've ever heard!