Bachmann = Right, Washington Post = Wrong

Michele Bachmann: “According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, in 2009, they said that college-aged students today…in your peak earning years, you will be looking at paying 37 percent of everything you make to the government just to satisfy Social Security and Medicare. 37 percent. That’s more than a third of your income just to pay for that.”

Washington Post: “Using NCPA’s math, we calculate the ‘payroll tax burden’ would be 29 percent, not 37 percent — a 22 percent improvement because of the health-care law.”

This would be true if the health reform law was really going to hold down Medicare spending, but no one — not the Congressional Budget Office nor the Medicare Chief Actuary — thinks that’s going to happen. There is no cost control in the bill other than pushing down fees for doctors. In 2050, when Medicare fees are 50% of private fees, the payroll tax will be lower, but retirees will have extreme difficulty getting health care.

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Larry C. says:

    I’m glad to see some politicians out there taking advantage of the NCPA’s research.

  2. Greg says:

    Isn’t this like quibbling about how many deck chairs there are on the Titanic. No matter the exact number, the ship is going down.

  3. Kara says:

    What I think is that it is going to be very bad for people my age (relatively young) and I see a whole raft of people in Congress who could care less.

  4. Brian Williams. says:

    Michelle Bachmann, like most common-sense Americans, understands that the entitlement programs are unsustainable. She used good data from NCPA to drive her point home.

    The Washington Post, like other media outlets, seems to be driven by an insatiable need to tear down people like Michelle Bachmann. Otherwise, they’d run “fact checker” articles about the dubious conclusions of the 2010 Trustees Reports.

  5. Joe S. says:

    Michelle is becoming a lightning rod. But I guess that is OK. Anyone who is clear and effective is going to antogonize the left.

  6. Devon Herrick says:

    The Washington Post was taking issue with Bachmann’s assertion because she relied on data from the (old) 2009 Trustees Report when the (new) 2010 Trustees Report said the Affordable Care Act had improved the Trust Fund’s long term fiscal health. Yet the 2010 Trustees Report bases its rosy predictions on $575 billion in Medicare cuts (required under current law) that everyone knows will not be followed through on. It would appear the Washington Post Fact Checker is the one who needs his facts checked.

  7. Joe Barnett says:

    Kessler’s argument is really with CMS Chief Actuary Rick Foster. But it does point out that, in getting CBO to score their repeal, all Republicans have to do is write into their bill similar assumptions and toothless mechanisms as the Democrats did to conjure up the necessary savings, and the press will treat it as fact. Or will they?

  8. Nancy says:

    I’ve always liked Michelle Bachman. I can’t understand why the liberals hate her so much.

  9. Bruce says:

    I suppose a writer at the Washington Post would be fired if he praised Michele (spelled with one “l” for all you less careful folks above) Bachman. So if all we have here is minor quibbling, we should consider ourselves lucky.

  10. steve says:

    I want to revive the claymation Celebrity Death Matches. Michelle Bachmann vs Maxine Waters would be an ideal match. Both are batsh&t crazy.


  11. Vicki says:

    Catherine, maybe the Examiner is a better newspaper.