One of the most annoying things about the way the health-care battle has played out in the press is the way arguments of fact are presented as arguments of politics. That happened today, when, in a roundabout way of reporting on the CBO's score of the latest iteration of the reform bill, The New York Times attributed the savings to the words of top Democrat officials instead of the Congressional Budget Office, which it later called "authoritative."
In the first ten years, the legislation would reduce deficits by $130 billion, Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House majority whip, said after a meeting of the party’s caucus. The effect on deficits over the following decade would be much greater, a total of $1.2 trillion, he said. The savings would come largely from reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, with new fees and tax increases also contributing.
It seems clear that the reporter simply hadn't seen the report, which was released after the story was published online, and so is attributing the findings to the officials who are repeating them just to be safe. But it still presents the argument as a political one, as opposed to a numerical and factual one that can actually be assessed outside of the politics. Expect the story later to include quotes from Republicans arguing that, somehow, the bill will actually raise the deficit.
-- Monica Potts
