is not what the cbo said. what the cbo said was that these people would be off the roads. the point that you're making is one in which you're making the decision to cut the 16 billion. >> we're reclaiming my time. all of the amendments being offered here today and the underlying bill doesn't reduce the eligibility requirement and basically what all of these amendments do is say that if you want to get these benefits, don't you have to apply for them and you have to qualify for them and whatever you can qualify for is the benefit you get, but in having this system is ways that people can get additional benefits by simply the state sending them a dollar's worth of money. that's unacceptable because what happens is they send them a dollar and automatically those people get $60 or $80 more a month whether they qualify for it or not. there's no verification for that. i don't know why you would object to people having to substantiate, hey, i need help with my utility bills. so i think we have to talk about fixing th

how much of the cbo's 80 billion dollars in savings we imploded, 16% of the economy?e federal budget. correct me if i'm wrong, i think it's 3 1/2 trillion dollars, it's huge and savings over ten years of 84 billion dollars on that type after budget is nothing, it's nothing. we've imploded 16% of the economy for nothing. >> julian. >> let's put facts on the table. 97% of small businesses are exempt from the health care law, of the 3% that aren't exempt, 91, 92% provide health insurance. >> by the way, you have to assume tell' continue doing so, right? >> a lot of them will say we can't afford it. >> okay, of the small numbers of small business that this will change the situation for, they get a 50% tax credit for providing health insurance. >> why are we doing this then. >> the cbo-- >> because they're giving incentive to meet the small, to meet the employer requirement, the cbo, which conservatives and republicans love to cite is saying that the premiums for small businesses will go down from 4% to 11%. 11% when you include the small business credit and you can't just

isuar a cbo's analysis to do. one of the reasons in so doing was because people rightly say when you thin about prevention, you shou be thinki beyd 10 years d yoshou b ing potiv ime, and so we took up the challenge and looked at it from that perspective. that being said, it is really important to grasp that decions are ntdinb the cbo estimates. policy indicators will indicate many other things into account. they will look at what the health incomes will be. are they going to improve the health of the population? they're going to look at whether this is a good investment and if it istfee quonoue o vent all of those things go into making a decision of which the budgetary store score is just one component. it is also important to imehatpo haveother picieto very different outcomes. this is jut one particular intervention. one of the reasons we did this, particular analysis, was because of the eviden that you have seen. you have heard from matt about how much e nwabe feof ivens ba h lofformation that we could use, and

you have this cbo's and then somewhere else, the crn's. in my very short time of being supervisor i have observed that the burden sadly rests on the shoulders of the people affected. i can give a quick example. i know there was one time -- you know, you have women who are resident managers at housing authorities where the victim lived where the perpetrator lived. they're racing around making sure everything is ok. you bring in the healing circle to maybe do something and then you bring in the cren and then you find out that they do not have the ability to pay for the funeral and there is grieving and they're traumatized and all of this stuff. i found that sometimes -- what we have found is because there are so many turf and neighbor of lines -- neighborhood lines, a lot of people will not lead to access the services they need. we have instances where people are living in the housing authority sites that are impacted. to the extent that we can coordinated -- and we have in the past with the ymca and other organizations -- bring the services

and the discussions about how cbo arrived at those numbers. >> cbo's numbers were revised periodicallyrs, also outsight groups did look at the cbo numbers. did find different numbers, but they did see savings as well, according to nonpartisan groups. >> and the issue -- >> we are going to move on, because you agreed. 4 million people are expected to not accept this plan, even though they can affordç insurae on their own. they will be the ones that will be affected. this is only about 1% of the population. so when we look at the penalty versus tax, this might indicate -- this is a very small number of individuals that will be affected by the penalty. >> you know what? we found with ten care in tennessee was this. that the program through a period of five years, quadrupled in cost, and what you saw was a program that was supposed to be the last resort. what happened, employers chose not to offer health insurance and had you people gravitating to the program because it was basically a free program, so i would take issue with what would be the 4 million number that are you using there. an

what does the cbo credit for this cost reduction?> they are expecting that some states will opt out of medicaid as a supreme court decision allowed them to do. that would save some $84 billion. and that means a total cost of this program of obama care would be 1.168 trillion over 10 years. that brings in the cost of it. >> shepard: there is repeal effort underway obviously? >> yes. >> shepard: any indication how this would affect that. >> this would add 109 billion to the deficit if the bill were to be repealed. that's the expectation of the cbo in their report today. we also found out some other stuff. taxes would cost another a billion dollars as you said, more people would be covered under this law. 92% of citizens and legal residents compared to 81% right now all right. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> shepard: good news for anyone trying to sell a home. average price of a house is bouncing back. home prices in the second quarter of this year were up, only slight solid,, .2% but up. doesn't sound like a lot. first increase since

details on that cbo report are coming up. bill: watch the scene here. dust storm engulfing an entire city. where that hit and the outcome in moment. >> and what it is called. bill: yeah. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. bill: so a daredevil set to make the dive of his life, skydiver felix baumgartner, will jump some 90,000 feet from the edge of space. we brought you this story a couple weeks ago and now he is ready to go. he will jump out of a capsule attached to a hot-air ballon. he will go from zero to 500 miles per hour in 30 seconds. he will barely have any oxygen and temperatures will be well below freezing. here is he is when he joined us in our studios. have a look, back in may. >> i'm a competitive person. i've been a base jumper. i've been jumping off the highest buildings in the world. this is totally different ballgame. this is a science project. bill: like a astr

the cbo did not see that changing much. it saw a new layer of payments on top of that, insurance subsidies, and additional taxes, but the pace of spending continues to grow. that is the concern. can we get the horse race between income and spending per person to get closer? spending has been winning for decades. healthcare is nearly one out of $5. host: this tweet. guest: that is a good point. you cannot get affordable insurance unless you fix what you are paying for. i do not think people would care if you felt you were getting your money's worth, but there is discontent with access to service, and despite the fact that we spend so much we do not seem to be better than other countries. host: the next call for douglas holtz-eakin, independent line. georgia. caller: the supreme court stated categorically that this is a tax. where does it say that in the unit -- in the ruling? it says under the taxing powers congress can enforce the mandate as constitutional. i wonder if you could tell me what paragraph, page, or lying the su

in the medicare we talk about estimates and cbo and all that. medicare came out in 1965 as a $3 billion program. the government estimated at that time 65, there was no cpo said it would be a $12 billion program. the real answer $1 10 billion. did you vote for medicare part d. when it came out in 2003? >> did you vote? >> i know the answer to that, then. i came here to be involved in health care reformat. that's why i ran for congress. and we weren't -- the republicans weren't even included in debate. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, that's the best place for me to leave. is involved in the issues. there's not a single person in this room that cares more about the health care georgia begans that dr. price and i. >> let me say on the panel here that we have other members who have aa right to ask you questions. we have the series of votes on the floor. i'd ask all of you to come back as the other members of the rules committee are looking forward. oh -- okay. mr. levin was leaving my gosh he has so much to offer. i inferred from his standing up we we

it is the rules of the cbo that you are prohibited from parties and political activities. this lady who wrote this scoring that was released yesterday afternoon, she's fully involved with president obama with his campaign and obamacare. >> right, delivering a speech in 2008, even being dubbed an obama spokesperson and visiting the white house, according to "the daily caller" eight times between 2009 and 2010. >> bottom line here is you have a conflict of interest in the scoring, the costing out of obamacare. we don't know what's going to happen with obamacare and that's 15% of america's economy. what a mess! >> what a mess indeed. all right. stuart varney, we hope you tidy things up three hours from now, he'll be on fox business presiding over that big plastic desk. >> and i'll calm down, too. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, stuart. >> 19 minutes after the hour. coming up here on "fox & friends", the same city that banned happy meals now wants to make it easier for people to watch porn at the public library? you won't believe this one. >> i don't believe it now. and

so cbo, the people that look at this say that we're not going to have a need for any of this program through 2021, that the program is going to continue to operate, no cost. this would also roll back the sugar price supports to 27 years ago, 1985, so we're not talking about taking rice or peanuts or cotton or corn or soybeans back to 1985. the price loss program in this bill actually updates those price supports significantly, and i have worked with my friends around the country to support those increased levels. so i guess i just don't understand why we would go back to 1985 on sugar when we've had 114% increase in commodity prices since 1985, so i mean it just doesn't make any sense, and at the end of the day it is kind of like dairy. if the sugar prices came down, it wouldn't change a price of a candy bar. it wouldn't change the price of any of the things that sugar goes into because it is a miniscule amount. so we have a good domestic industry that provides jobs, that's working. we have a no cost program, it is not broken, we don't need to fix it, so i ask members to oppose this

absolutely and the cbo, a very conservative organization, has recommended sat beti b tadditional1 taxrevenue it produces and the economic benefits it would produce. as well. so there are answers to the questions. it's not rocket science. it's a qstion of political will, ande nd bchf nehoheexrent is, president obama or governor romney, to be willing to lead, to be willing to own these compromises, to be willing to say to the legislature we're going to dotuff that's going to set this country o the ph anery'in h rtwhe d but we're going to do it together. that's what real executive leadership is about. and if the prident-elect or the president next january does i'lo on one optimistich note. 150 senators and congressmen sent the supercommittee that was task with finding a way to get $1.9 trillion out of the deficit, they senthe noeryi r you to do something big, we urge you to do something that takes five, six, seven trillion dollars out of the defit, and we will stand behind the tough choices that you have to make. th e35 ren aor to but with good presidential leadership, that 135 can becom

i look at the cbo score and it appears in form by chaos theory. you know, when i look at the array of prices and i see $4 and then i see 4.50, 5, 5.50, of course based on the numbers that we have given them for underlying bill, it is not clear to me why this number moves around so much. how does it go to being better for the smaller farmers in one price to more expensive in the next to better to more expensive, and i will tell you that while i deeply appreciate the work that's been done, listening to my farmers late last night and reaching out to them what, we don't want to do at this point is undo all the good work that's been done and really the reputation that's been put on the line to evolve this policy to get it where it serves everyone. i am going to ask respectfully and urge and inspire mr. goodlatte and mr. scott to continue to work with the ranking member. this is a process. we're going to get to the point where we're going to eventually get a camera bill and one we'll be proud to get behind, but for now i am going to vote against this am

the reason the budgetary language is in the bill, that allows us to have the bill scored through cbo. it is standard language that is used for this piece of legislation. >> once it's scored, is there a plan to pay for this bill through either offsetting cuts elsewhere or tax increases? >> the provision in section d, -- section 4 of the bill, provides for the ability to have that discussion with the cbo. >> i understand why we're asking discussion after you pass the repeal. i thought the way we're suppose to do things, you find out how much something will cost and then you take a vote on it and people vote yes or no. it's extraordinary, maybe unprecedented that congress is about to make incredibly important decision. the majority would admit they have no idea whether this repeal adds or subtracts to the deficit. the last authoritative rule adds in excess of $200 billion to the deficit. i really fail to understand. i yield back. >> mr. webster. thanks to all of you for being here. we greatly appreciate your testimony. we were planning to go to ms. schwartz next. we have three votes on t

the outreach, working with the cbo's in the western addition.a and i'm thinking it is only open until 1:00. g9i> seen no other speakers we will close the public comment. i am just wondering if there are any questions for mr. rich or if he wants to make some concluding remarks. >> thank you for so much time. has been over 20 hours in our for hearings, and for everyone that testified. then also people from the community

the other thing is in terms of scoring of other interventions, this is not a cbo cost estimate. i think it's important to understand that. it goes into much broader change of -- range of issues than there would be in cbo cost estimate. in looking a the years in having the effects on very broad range of programprograms in having an effect on gdp by looking at the effects on productivity, and looking at effects on waging and soing on, we are going into much more than we would go into in a small other ten year budget window. certainly we are learned things we would apply in the context, but not do nearly as comp ensive analysis. i don't think anybody would want to wait two to three years for the cost estimate of the poem. >> one i'm pleased to note the hon honorary -- cbo produced. and maintains a very strong interest in the outcome of that report. the other is that i misspoke earlier, in fact, the study is in your pact. i finally stumbled over it. it's yellow in color. and actually, let me pick up a couple of questions that kind of continue the thread of what linda was talking abo

the cbo next year and the year after and the year after will come back and score obamacare 'cause the cost of obamacare will skyrocket. let's talk about $15 trillion, a couple things. if you take one dollar bills, check out this deck. here is a stack. here is $500. if you stacked one dollar bills this way, $15 trillion would be 1.07 million miles to the sky or to -- wait a minute. or to the moon and back twice. another way to look at it. president obama, let's talk about all the debt up 'til president obama, president obama. you can hold president obama's debt. >> give it -- redistribute it. >> here is obama's debt. per year, okay. hold it up. every single year president obama has had that much money to the national deficit, national debt, and all the presidents combined in the last 100 years, per year annual is this much. >> do we have finger painting after this? >> there you go. here. president obama, each year annualized. every other president the last 100 years. >> how about whack a mole? this is a useless discussion. >> why is that useless? >> first of all, he's not responsible f

or -- cbo scores is a topic we hear a lot about.doct willexpla cb released ajsd i ll talk about that at the end. i will start with general thoughts how we think with the federal budget. the first issue, tere ar abcoep hnng with any type of health care prevention or treatment, one needs to kf the ef th cf care and health care spending. people also want to think about with the return n investment and is st im w ispl e. oin fe ct tan tite how does this affect spending and revenues? when we think of budgetary impacts coma etn ine t s what are the baselines? not to a point* in time concept. what'd to read thien will have been over the next 10 years with the absence of any change of law? spending, ris, outcomes, a nd drsth or you hear about new york and others but what would the other states to over 10 years to affectwat diilb? and will have a marginal effect with current law. then it what will happen to heth, atik th behavioral response. at enthehr f emerorr cahal -- employers, estates, schools, and the response to the policy will helpto

just -- that's you bring up a good point and we could debate the cbo numbers. but why?> to answer your political question, i think it goes back to what i said before. i wonder if it's part of a negotiating position. no matter what the president proposes he puts the republicans on the defensive. they have to come back and say, well no, we're not going to do what you want to do, whether it's $250,000 or a million. as we've seen for -- since at least 2010 when the new congress came in, republicans on capitol hill aren't going to do anything. >> mike barnicle, if i were a republican on the campaign trail right now i would have said three weeks ago, i didn't have a whole lot to campaign on other than overblown rhetoric, i can talk about the obama health care tax. i don't care what mitt romney's stupid people said. obama passed and it's a law of the land a health care tax. >> messed that up. >> and obama is now passing -- try to push a small business tax. i've got two taxes. that's all i'm talk about in my district between now and the campaign. i kick any democrat in a swing

i've read the cbo report. i know exactly what they say. at the same time the cbo is one source.not telling me you fully embrace everything the cbo says in that report? >> i'm just saying that that order of magnitude in terms of jobs and gdp seems reasonable to me. >> i think everybody wouldn't like that. there is a serious question. i would argue with the cbo report on other issues. but they're not here today. you are. i guess what i'm asking is, it's unreali iistic to think nothing going to happen. either we're going to do nothing which will mean tax increases which will mean massive spending cuts, or we will do something. we probably will not do everything. probably not kick the ball down the road and just extend all the tax cuts and get rid of sequestration altogether. we're going to do something in the middle. the question is, what's in the middle that is a reasonable number? >> thank you. >> i'm not looking to jeopardyize the economy. >> don't have a magic number. i just think you should take a smoother approach to achieving fiscal sustainability. >> thank you. mr. jones? >

. >> the cbo did not predict how many states would expand the population. >> the cbo does not say howany states or which states. >> the report simply said, quote, fewer people will be covered by the medicaid program, more people will obtain health insurance through the new exchanges and more people will be uninsured. those on exchanges get generous federal taxpayer subsidies. the states have to pay to expand medicaid. >> all those people can go into a new health insurance exchange and the federal government will pay almost all their premium and that will be private insurance. >> republicans argued for repealing and replacing the healthcare law. today the c about. o said that would add $109 billion to the deficit over a decade leading democrats to issue a challenge. >> to those who favor a appeal, have the burden of coming forward and arguing how to reduce the deficit. >>> the law says it will raise revenue in part by cutting medicare by $500 billion. the chief actuary of medicare said that would reduce payments to less than those on medicaid. >> the senior citizen will be less attract

we've been trying to work with westside and a lot of cbo's continue to work on prevention, working with families and whenever. someone mentioned witness protection. having to move people, this woman living in a three-bedroom with a son who was murdered. she wanted a smaller place. we worked to try to find her new residents. so there are those levels of cooperation that we have been successful in having with your office and i hope we continue to move in that direction. we will look for more issues as they come up and let you know, but it is deep. >> let me first say thank you. you have been instrumental in challenging us to create those opportunities and make improvements where you have asked for them. in some cases we have been able to react quickly and in some it takes a little more time. public safety is our number one objective. jobs are our second. i like the mayor and we have to do something about these guns. we cannot have young kids settling disputes with guns. it's simply not something we can allow. we are doing lots of things, but we need to do more and evaluate if the things w

in a rising at the latest estimate cbo makes assumptions about incentives facing states and deciding whether to anticipate and the numbers of people newly eligible gaining coverage but a huge amount of uncertainty clearly about what the final outcome will be. the panel today will take up some of the key implementation issues for the exchanges particularly in the wake of the supreme court decision given open enrollment begins in october of 2013. what are the next steps for state and federal government to meet the deadline and what are the implications of the decision particularly as regards to coverage of lower-income families and federal and state policy options for participation in the medicaid expansion and with that are will turn this back over to ed. >> thank you, sara. just a couple quick logistical items in your packets. there is a lot of good background information including biographical information of all of our speakers. there are copies of the power point presentations we had on hand in time to reproduce and we will have krista drobac's presentation on our web site allhealt

we get an answer very different from the cbo.g intelligently, this could be very expensive. it is already enormously expensive. bill: you're sighing this would push the employees into a health exchanges run by the government? and the government pays for that, which means more tax dollars. that is the argument you're making? >> it is pretty simple. the senator is right. there is a real temptation for firms to dump their workers into the government exchanges. there is also real temptation for states to dump their medicare population into the exchanges. if that happens, that could cost more than anyone could dream. bill: let me get the senator's last comment here. you said the governors need to be told how up that are obligation is and how much do you budget for your state's money. >> governors are right not to trust washington to come through with promises. what governors want is flexibility and choice which is why lindsey graham and i have introduced the state health care choice act to give the governors flexibility and choice tha

it is not a burden on the middle class. >> chris: again, nonpartisan cbo said four million americans will pay the tax . let's look at why chief rojustice robesty berts. it will be collect enforced by the internal revenue. you pay a percentage of the income and here's what the president's lawyer told the court in defending the mandate. >> not only is it fair to read it as an exercise of the tax power but this court contrued it as a tax power. >> chris: if it walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. >> guest: kris, it is a long time since i practiced one of the things of the judicial system you can argue to the court on multiple grounds. that's what they were doing. it was set up not called a tax. powers that congress has and you can justify a law under multiple ways. the court took that route. it was defined as a penalty of the law and something that the people choose whether or not to be subject to. most americans want health insurance and 99 percent of the americans will take advantage of the act. one percent that choose not to have insurance, they don't control whether they will

>> i cited the cbo number of1.25 millions of the we lost -- that would be lost not created. it is very important to not forget about the long run. we have to make sure we're addressing the long-term issues. i have been recommending a combination of more moderate fiscal retrenchment in the shorter-term to respect the fragility of the recover andy. >> the other shoe that will drop is the ending of the bush tax cuts. what is your advice of which way we should go in that direction as far as having a lessening impact on unemployment? >> i cannot advise on specific tax cuts and spending but looking at the package overall -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i am concerned about the entire program. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> ever since 2009, >> we have heard that the house -- that the fed is out of bullets but you and your colleagues have been pulling the trigger quite a bit since that time whether it is three rounds of quantitative easing, six years of interest rates being almost as zero, balance sheet still stands almost triple its n

speaking before the national press club the cbo says that u.s. air is ready to get this done but that u.s. air must still make a final offer since american still holds exclusive rights to propose organization plans. parents are ready to spend big bucks on back-to-school shopping this year. i will tell you how much, in the next hour. live at bloomberg headquarters, linda bell reporting for abc 7 news. back to you. >> thank you. time to start shopping. thanks so much. it is 76 degrees. >> coming up, important news for commuters in montgomery county. a fire caused changes for the ride on bus captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> thursday morning. another warm start today. to be made up to 101 yesterday at reagan national. this was the seventh time this year of 100 degrees or better. outside this morning it's 80 degrees at reagan national, 73 in gaithersburg, the same in hagerstown. it's quiet on the doppler radar right now. expect showers and thunderstorms as we move through the late morning and into the afternoon. her

remember the cbo window only looks at ten years. if you move the cbo window to when the individual mandate starts and goes into complete effect, it is the biggest tax increase in history. >> alice, one of your former bosses, rick santorum, who lost the gop to mitt romney, said romney would not be able to make the argument against obama care because of his similar plan in massachusetts. is senator santorum right? is that what's going on here? >> no. there was a tremendous difference between what's instituted in massachusetts. they have the power to do that in the states and governor romney made it very clear -- >> so it was not a tax in massachusetts? >> it was a mandate. he made it very clear in his interview with jan crawford. he said he agrees with the dissent. the supreme court has ruled. the majority ruled that it is a tax. like it or not, it's a tax. now, the real question should go to president obama. he's the one that's come full triangle on this when he was thinking -- just a second. >> wait, are you saying he flip-flopped,

ryan did the cbo to score his plan as a deficit reducer, so he simply directed the cbo to score his plan assuming it would raise 19% of gdp. that is quite an assumption. i wish we could assume all of our problems away like that. bruce bartlett slammed the plan, writing, he offers only the sugar of the reductions without telling us what the medicine of the big broadening would be. mitt romney said something similar, cutting rates for the rich, while refusing to name the deductions that would be needed to play for it. it was a bait and switch. it was not a step in our direction. it was a leap toward the tea party and away from ideal. democrats were willing to match the republicans dollar for dollar on the spending side and more. we even beyond when it came to tackling entitlements. we had backing from our leadership and our party to make a big deal. we jumped right into the middle of the ring. republicans refused to move an inch in our direction on revenue. they actually tried to use deficit reduction committees to cut taxes for the rich even further credit they were so focused on how thei

not enough supply in the pipeline or is it the contractors in subs are not reaching to the halls and cbo's to get them? >> on the -- they are performing the buttress work, there have been concerned about the complexity of the work and safety, but we need to picture the pipeline is there. there are associated work with the buttressed work and made its activity being done where we will try to see if they cannot bring in more apprentices. the laborers is not a pipeline issue. they have been improving the numbers. we need to encourage and keep that improvement going forward so we will be in compliance in the future. chaire kim: any other questions? >thank you. >> armonk the construction update with steve roluhle. >> good morning, directors. -- now we have the construction update. it was a good month. a couple of major milestones reached, and that was first street bridge getting put in over memorial day weekend quite successfully. we have good information on that. the other great achievement was actually getting five but to shaft's done in a single week, and average has been between three and f

about the deficit and yet, the hill report on the impact of the health care law says that when the cbouse republicans first bill to repeal, the affordable care act, it estimated -- this is the cbo, it estimated that repeal would probably increase the federal deficit by roughly $145 billion over ten years. how did they justify this as being the ones that want to deal with the deficit but if they repealed this health care law, the first repeal they than went through, without it actually increase the deficit by this huge amount of money. >> these deficit hawks turn into deficit chickens and just as soon as they are confront bid the facts of what they want to do. everything falls on the face of their ideology. i don't believe that they are really concerned about the deficit. i think what they want to do is to create cut -- cut taxes, create deficit and justify all of it by only spending cuts. because that's all they ever want to do but not to military and not to things which people want like tax cuts for the wealthy. just programmatic cuts for middle class and working people. so really, yo

tony's also right that the cbo predicted two quaers of recession if we did what i'm advocating. we are really in deep trouble. people don't understand how deep trouble we're in because of the deficits. i think it's worth two quarters of recession and then out and the cbo projection is grow 2.3% in the next fiscal year. i think that's worth it to get there. we have to deal with the deficit. no other way and that will cause people in congress to sit down and do reform. >> tony, i'll switch to you because i'm going to blame the republicans just as much because we just keep hearing the middle class is overtaxed. they overtax the middle class. tax rates at the lowest level of 30 years. incomes stagnant. but now the middle class sort to speak paying higher payroll taxes. we have conned the american people in to believing somebody else can pay for this. >> somebody else has on china! >> the way that we pay interest on our debt. and, you know, and the large portion of the income tax burden that's paid by the upper income tax brackets today. it's not that -- look. we probably have to loo

cbo says we're going to save a trillion dollars in the second ten years of the bill's operation. we're going to have 30 million people who have availability of health care. we're going to have kids who won't have to worry about pre-existing conditions or people who transfer from one job to another. we're going to have seniors who will have that doughnut hole eliminated for them. we're going to have people have preventative care they won't have to worry about cost. i think this is a very positive message for us to take to the american people. frankly, the republicans lost. they thought they were going to get 50, 60, 70 democrats to turn their back on the bill. that didn't happen. >> they thought they were going to get more votes than they did. do you think you can pick up seats in the house on this vote, on what happened today and on the health care law? you confident this is going to help the democrats pick up seats? >> it's going to help us pick up seats, particularly in light of the fact that we're spending time on something that has no chance of passage, no chance of enactment

holtz-eakin says: "the cbo does not say how many states, it does not say which states." the congressional budget office expects more people will obtain health insurance through newly created exchanges.... heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers.... goodman says: "all of those people can go over into a new health insurance exchange and the federal government will pay almost all of their premium and that will be private insurancee"republicans have argued for repealiig and replacing the health care law. but the c-b-o report claims that would actually add 109 billion dollars to the deficit over a decade ... leading democrats to issue a challenge: andrews says: "so those who want to do that have responsibility of offsetting and keeping it down." of course, they can only compute what congress says it will do... and the law said it will raise revenue ii part by cutting medicare for seniors by 500 billion dollars. goodman says: " that means the senior citizen will be less to doctors from a financial point of view than welfare mothers. how long do you think that can go on before