NH INSIDER

Extends Unemployment Benefits for New Hampshire Families



On First Anniversary of President Obama’s Signing of Recovery Act, Evidence Shows Bill Has Funded Jobs in New Hampshire

One year after President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), evidence is showing that the bill has funded up to 2 million jobs nationally and brought the economy back from the brink.  Yet these successes have occurred no thanks to Senator Judd Gregg, who voted against the bill.  In fact, nearly every Republican in Congress voted against this legislation that has done so much for our country.

“President Obama’s Economic Recovery Act has saved or created thousands of jobs in New Hampshire and brought our economy back from the brink, despite Senator Gregg and the Republican Party’s best efforts to see it fail,” said DNC Regional Press Secretary Michael Czin. “This is just another example of Senator Gregg’s and the GOP’s willingness to put political posturing ahead of the best interests of Granite Staters.  Senator Gregg has shown time and time again that he is more interested in seeing the President fail than in doing what’s best for New Hampshire and the country. It’s time for Senator Gregg and the GOP to stop playing politics with our economic security and start working with President Obama and Congressional Democrats in their continued efforts to undo the damage of the last eight years.”



On Live Free or Die Alliance Webcast Tue 2-16-10 Sen. Gregg gives one word answer to "Do you support expanded gambling as way to increase NH revenue?"

Senator Gregg flatly rejected expanded gambling as a source of new revenue for New Hampshire to address its budget crisis. In responding to a viewer's question on the Live Free or Die Alliance webcast, he gave host Jack Heath a one word answer, "No."

Senator Gregg Elaborates

In response to Heath's request for clarification, Gregg forcefully spoke of the corrupting influence of outside gambling interests on the state's political process.

In addition, Gregg pointed out that expanded gambling simply does not fit in with "the basic character of the state."

A spokesperson for the coalition opposing expanded gambling said, "The stand of a former attorney general, former governor, senior senator must be taken quite seriously by all thoughtful NH policy makers." 

David Lamarre-Vincent of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling said he was pleased that Gregg spoke with such clarity.

Please see below for a fact check on false claims made by Senator Judd Gregg on MSNBC today:

RHETORIC: Gregg Said That The Senate Health Care Bill Cost $2.5 Trillion And That All The Debt It Would Create Would "Put Our Kids In A More Difficult Situation." Sen. Judd Gregg: "In fact, it becomes instead of an $846 or $864 billion it becomes a $2.5 trillion spending bill with over trillion dollars of Medicare cuts and over a trillion and a half dollars of tax increases and fee increases. So the numbers get pretty gigantic. My opinion is that. ... We know we're passing onto our kids a big debt they can't possibly pay. If you expand the government by $2.5 trillion and you know you're not paying for the whole thing, a lot of that flows to debt and put our kids in a more difficult situation where they inherit a government that can't afford and therefore their standard of living will go down because you end up with the tax burden going up dramatically or end up inflating the economy, both does serious damage to quality of life in this country." [MSNBC, 12/14/09]

REALITY: THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL WOULD SLASH THE DEFICIT BY OVER $750 BILLION IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS DESPITE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS CLAIM

Claim That Senate Bill Would Cost $2.5 Trillion Was Generated By Senate Budget Committee Republicans. Fox News reported that, “Republicans have countered the CBO estimate with a figure of their own: $2.5 trillion, an estimate that comes out of the Senate Budget Committee minority's analysis of Reid's plan.” [Fox News, 11/19/09]

Roll Call: Senate Bill “Slash[es] The Deficit By A Whopping $777 Billion Over The Next 20 Years. “At first blush, Reid scored a coup with his $849 billion bill, because Democrats said the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would slash the deficit by a whopping $777 billion over the next 20 years while providing insurance for an additional 31 million Americans. The price tag is also less than the $900 billion President Barack Obama had called for and the $1.2 trillion cost of the House-passed version… ‘He was applauded. His staff was applauded,’ said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a deficit hawk who said Reid did ‘an exceptionally good job.’” [Roll Call, 11/18/09]

Ezra Klein On Senate Bill: CBO Statements Confirm That, “The Curve, As They Say, Is Bent.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein wrote of the Senate health reform bill: “One actual surprise is that the Senate bill doesn't just pay for itself. It balances itself out. That is to say, the bill is not deficit neutral because it costs a billion dollars and then the government raises a billion more dollars in taxes. In that scenario, the government is spending more, but paying for it. Rather, ‘CBO expects that, during the decade following the 10-year budget window, the increases and decreases in the federal budgetary commitment to health care stemming from this legislation would roughly balance out, so that there would be no significant change in that commitment.’ In the first 10 years, in other words, the bill improves the deficit a bit, but the government is spending $160 billion more on health care than it otherwise would have. In the second decade, however, that ends: The savings from Medicare and Medicaid, paired with the excise tax (which CBO says ‘is effectively a reduction in the existing tax expenditure for health insurance premiums’) and a handful of other changes, leaves the government spending no more on health care than it otherwise planned to. That's impressive stuff. And it implies, of course, that in the third decade, the federal commitment actually goes down relative to expectation. The curve, as they say, is bent.” [Washington Post – Ezra Klein, 11/19/09]

REALITY: REFORM WILL BE PAID FOR, WILL NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT

WSJ: CBO’s Estimate Of Senate Bill Is $848 Billion, Cuts Deficit By $130 Billion. The Wall Street Journal reported that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set the stage for a climactic debate in the Senate over health care by unveiling a 10-year, $848 billion bill that would extend insurance to 31 million Americans without coverage…In a boost for the bill's prospects, the CBO estimated the Senate measure would reduce the federal budget deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, and additional amounts over the second 10 years of the program. It achieves that in part through a new Medicare payroll tax and a tax on high-value insurance plans, which has aroused strong opposition…To help ease the financial burden on workers, Mr. Reid lowered the maximum amount the bill would require them to spend on premiums, capping premiums at 9.8% of income, down from 12%.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/19/09]

Roll Call On CBO Score: Senate Bill “Slash[es] The Deficit By A Whopping $777 Billion Over The Next 20 Years,” Sen. Kent Conrad Said Sen. Reid Did “An Exceptionally Good Job.” Roll Call reported that, “[a]t first blush, Reid scored a coup with his $849 billion bill, because Democrats said the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would slash the deficit by a whopping $777 billion over the next 20 years while providing insurance for an additional 31 million Americans. The price tag is also less than the $900 billion President Barack Obama had called for and the $1.2 trillion cost of the House-passed version… ‘He was applauded. His staff was applauded,’ said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a deficit hawk who said Reid did ‘an exceptionally good job.’” [Roll Call, 11/18/09]

Please see below for a fact check on remarks made just now by Senator Gregg on the Senate floor, incorrectly stating that the CMS report says premiums will increase under health reform:   RHETORIC: Gregg Said That The CMS Report Said That National Health Expenditures And Health Insurance Premiums Would Increase. Sen. Judd Gregg: "Now, let me read to you what the conclusion is, some of them, on the Reid bill. The Reid bill, according to C.M.S. actuaries, it would increase, increase national health care expenditures by by $234 billion during the period 2010-2019. Why is this important? Well, it's pretty darn important because we had representations that the purpose of this health care reform was to decrease, to move down the health care costs. Now we find that this bill as actuaries significantly increases the national health care expenditures. ... It appears the Reid bill clearly fails that test and gets an f on the issue of vetting the health care costs down and on the issue of insuring everyone, according to C.M.S., an independent group. ... So instead of bringing health premiums down as was represented by the president -- he said it was going to come down by $2,100 per family, it's going to go up, your health care premiums."  [Senate Floor, 12/11/09]

REALITY: THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL LOWERS COSTS AND PREMIUMS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESS

CMS Report: Senate Health Care Bill Saves Seniors Nearly $700 Per Couple Per Year While Reducing Premiums More Than $300 Per Year And Out Of Pocket Costs By Another $370 Per Year. According to a recently released CMS report, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act saves seniors nearly $700 per couple per year, reducing premiums by more than $300 per year and out of pocket costs by another $370 per year in 2019.  [CMS Report, 12/10/09]

CMS Report: Senate Health Care Bill Will Have "A Significant Downward Impact On Future Health Care Cost Growth Rates." According to a recently released CMS report, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have “a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates.”  [CMS Report, 12/10/09]

WP: CBO Said The Senate Health Care Bill “Would Leave Premiums Unchanged Or Slightly Lower For The Vast Majority Of Americans, Contradicting Assertions By The Insurance Industry That The Average Family’s Coverage Would Rise.”  “As the Senate opened debate Monday on a landmark plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system, congressional budget analysts said the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans, contradicting assertions by the insurance industry that the average family's coverage would rise by thousands of dollars if the proposal became law.” [Washington Post, 12/1/09]

NYT: CBO Said That The Senate Health Care Bill Could "Significantly Reduce Costs For Many People Who Buy Health Insurance On Their Own" And Would Reduce Premiums For People Who Get Their Insurance Through Their Employers. “The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers. ... In groups with 50 or fewer employees, it said, unsubsidized premiums in 2016 would average $7,800 a year for individuals and $19,200 for families — scarcely any different from the amounts expected under current law. Of the 25 million people receiving coverage from small businesses, it said, 3 million would qualify for subsidies, which would reduce their premiums by an average of 8 percent to 11 percent. Large employers would generally not be eligible for such assistance. Their premiums in 2016 under the bill would average $7,300 for individual coverage and $20,100 for family coverage, the report said. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $7,400 for individual coverage and $20,300 for family coverage." [New York Times, 12/1/09]

Ezra Klein: “Congressional Budget Office: Reform Will Bring Down The Cost Of Health-Care Insurance.” “The Congressional Budget Office released a report today estimating changes to average premiums under the Senate health-care bill. The report is going to prove very important, and is going to confuse a lot of people. So let's be very, very clear about what it says. The CBO's analysis broke the health-care system into three parts: individual, small group and large group. The small- and large-group markets account for 159 million Americans, and have very little change in premiums. But what change they see is in the right direction: Health-care reform is expected to reduce premiums in the large group market by about 1.5 percent, and in the small group market by about 0.5 percent. … So in the final analysis, the effect of reform on your typical individual market purchasers is to give them insurance that's about 30 percent better but only 10 to 12 percent more expensive, and then assure them subsidies that will lower their payments by more than 50 percent. And if you're in the small group or large group markets, your premiums are expected to fall a bit.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 11/30/09]

TNR: Health Care Reform Will “In Fact Deliver Some Savings… [And] It Certainly Won’t Raise Premiums.” “If you get insurance through a large employer, then your insurance premiums should stay roughly the same, with perhaps a very small decrease. … If you get insurance through a small employer, then, again, your insurance premiums should stay roughly the same, with perhaps an even smaller decrease. … If you get insurance on your own, then your premiums would probably go up, because you'd end up buying coverage that was more comprehensive. … But--and this is the key point--newly available federal subsidies will more than offset this increase. In other words, the majority of people buying coverage on their own will be able to spend less money and, at the same time, get better insurance. … But this analysis suggests reform can in fact deliver some savings--and that it certainly won't raise premiums, as so many conservative critics have predicted.” [The New Republic, 11/30/09]

MIT Analysis: The Senate Health Care Bill Would Reduce Premium Prices In The Individual Health Insurance Market. “A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama. The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs. … Gruber concludes that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.” [Politico, 11/28/09]