Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate

July 22, 2009 12:13 PM

Republicans on Wednesday criticized as inappropriate a meeting President Obama held Monday with the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf.

Elmendorf, a Democratic appointee, has been a thorn in the side of President Obama and congressional Democrats for the way he has analyzed health care reform legislation. In their view, Elmendorf hasn’t sufficiently given their health care reform proposals enough credit for cutting costs – which has caused them political problems in getting the legislation passed. Last week, frustrated at one analysis by Elmendorf, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., snapped, "what he should do is maybe run for Congress.”

“No one blames Mr. Elmendorf for accepting an invitation from the President of the United States,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.“The issue is whether it was appropriate for the White House to invite him to discuss pending legislation before Congress at all.” 

Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: "I noticed that the CBO director was sort of called down to the White House yesterday. It strikes me as somewhat akin as the owner of the team asking the umpires to come up to the owner's box."

McConnell said that "if the CBO is to have credibility, they're the umpire. They're not players in this game."

CBO is tasked with providing “objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget.”

The White House flatly rejected the idea that there was anything untoward about the invitation or the meeting, which took place on Monday for just under an hour. In addition to the president and Elmendorf, present in the meeting were White House officials such as Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag (a former CBO director himself), National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christy Romer, senior adviser David Axelrod, and press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Others were there as well, including Department of Health and Human Services adviser Meena Seshamani, Harvard University economist David Cutler and Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institute, who was founding director of CBO from 1975-1983.

“The President invited the director to the White House to discuss health care reform and reducing health care costs,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

Gibbs described the meeting as a way to discuss ways to reduce health care costs, with no discussion of the CBO methodologies that have annoyed Democrats in their drive to pass health care reform legislation.

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican appointee who advised the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that he never had a private meeting at the White House during his time helming CBO, from 2003 to 2005.

“The only appearance could be that they’re leaning on him,” Holtz-Eakin said. “CBO was created for Congress, for independent analysis. The White House did him (Elmendorf) a terrible disservice.”

Writing about the meeting on his blog, Elmendorf said President Obama asked him and other outside experts for their “views about achieving cost savings in health reform.  I presented CBO’s assessment of the challenges of reducing federal health outlays and improving the long-term budget outlook while simultaneously expanding health insurance coverage..”

He said those in the meeting also discussed “various policy options that could produce budgetary savings in the long run.” He described why last week he assessed the health care legislation offered by Senate Democrats as failing in the president’s stated goal of bending the cost curve of health care. “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf testified last week. “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

He said it was exciting to meet the president and be in the Oval Office and his children will be jealous “when they get back from summer camp and hear about it. “

“Of course,” Elmendorf wrote, “the setting of the conversation and the nature of the participants do not affect CBO’s analysis of health reform legislation. “

So far those analyses have been causing Democrats headaches.

"One of the things that's disappointing about CBO -- and frustrating -- is all the work…done on prevention" that the CBO doesn’t factor in, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., co-author of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee legislation, recently griped.

"You don't get the benefit in CBO of cost-savings with prevention programs,” Dodd said. They'll tell you how much an anti-smoking program may cost. They don't tell you the benefit occurs when a number of people stop smoking."

During the health care town hall meeting, President Obama said, "the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, which sort of polices what all various programs cost, they're not willing to credit us with those savings.  They say, ‘That may be nice, that may save a lot of money, but we can't be certain.’ So we expect that not only are we going to pay for health care reform in a deficit-neutral way, but that's it also going to achieve big savings across the system -- including in the private sector where the Congressional Budget Office never gives us any credit -- but if hospitals and doctors are starting to operate in a smarter way, that's going to help you even if you're not involved in a government system."

Before that, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that "it's always been a source, yes I will say frustration, for many of us in Congress that the CBO will always give you the worst case scenario on one initiative and never ... any credit for anything that happens if you have early intervention, health care. If you have prevention, if you have wellness ... you name any positive investment that we make, that we know reduces cost, brings money to the Treasury in the case of education but never scored positively by the CBO. Yes, it is frustrating."

Pelosi said, "I hope we will see them say, 'This is what we see the cost of something. We have not accounted for the benefits' because they don't and they haven't and it should not be inferred from what they do that they have."

Holtz-Eakin, who said he’s starting a think tank, added that if the White House was interested in Elmendorf’s views or suggestions, they needed to just have “read the CBO studies and left it at that. A wiser White House than this one would have seen that….These guys may have I.Q. points off the scale, but a reverence for institutions and something about a respect for the process is not their strong point.”

-jpt

*This post was updated with McConnell's comments.

July 22, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (204)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You do not need an "attending physician signature". The State Department website makes no request for that information.

I called up the State Department. I asked them if they would take a COLB and they originally said no. I told them that is what the State of Hawaii issues these days. The lady named several things that had to be on the certificate - which were all on Obama's COLB image. She then told me the document would be allowable.

She made no mention of needing an "attending physician signature" and there is no mention of that on the website application information.

Posted by: paulo | Nov 12, 2009 5:03:02 PM

Barak Obama does seem to try and intimidate people. I know that when Senators Dianne Feinstein and Claire McCaskill criticized something Pres Obama did - after a 'visit'from or talk with him they quickly changed their tune (the day after both of these visits statements were issued by their offices retracting their statements.)

About the birth certificate. If you go on the State Department website - you are required to present a birth certificate with a attending physician signature. When Obama tried to squelch the rumors about his birth (with his grandmother saying she was at his birth in Kenya etc.) he put the short form COLB on the web that even the State Department would not have accepted for a passport. Why are Americans who wonder about this considered fussy. We are no more fussy than the State Department or the DMV or the little league that requires a real birth certificate to play baseball.

Posted by: Michele | Jul 23, 2009 11:00:02 PM

"Law Enforcement" enables this swill.

Posted by: Mark | Jul 23, 2009 12:46:58 PM

Obama and his wife are racist.. we all know that. He should keep his nose out of the law and concentrate on his ruthless path to destroying America as we know it.

Posted by: mjl | Jul 23, 2009 9:22:23 AM

Can he be impeached for putting forth a bill that would enter your home, and decide if you are too old or too sick to receive treatments?

If this style of government suits you, then you should move to the EU...as for this Country, it was never founded upon anything like we see coming out of D.C. now!

Posted by: bobc | Jul 23, 2009 8:22:37 AM

Barack Obama has never released a real birth certificate. Hawaii has very strange birth certificate laws. The type Obama released is not the same as the long form birth certificate and the state of Hawaii will not even accept it as proof to obtain certain state benefits.

Will this lack of a birth certificate cause Obama to be forced from office? No one knows. It depends on how successful his presidency is, but if his approval ratings continue to fall he is in trouble.

The one thing we can say for certain is that Barack Obama is the first president in the history of our country who may be removed from office without being impeached. This means he does not have to commit a crime. The House of Representatives does not need to hold hearings and vote to impeach. The Senate does not need to hear evidence brought by the House and vote to remove him from office. All that needs to happen is for the Congress or the Supreme Court to decide he does not meet the requirements to hold office and he is out. This is the first time in the history of the nation we have had such a situation.

Posted by: RonInIrvine | Jul 22, 2009 11:58:58 PM

=========================
= OBAMA WILL BULLY EVERYONE WHO
= GETS IN HIS WAY
=========================
Including the Congressional Budget Office

Posted by: N Waff | Jul 22, 2009 10:50:14 PM

"Same thing, smear tactic . .. same old smear tactic - how lame."

Yeah, you are rather repetitive. Didn't you once say that you were an English major? Surely I'm mistaken.

Posted by: paul | Jul 22, 2009 9:12:52 PM

Ryan,

Racism is racism. Party affiliation doesn't matter. No one party owns the corner on it.

Posted by: jennifert7 | Jul 22, 2009 7:29:57 PM

Crying "racist" keeps real discussion of the issues off the table.

Posted by: mad | Jul 22, 2009 7:28:58 PM

My apologies: I need to correct my previous post. It was not Nancy Pelosi who was accused by the president of the BCC of making racial comments, it was Senator Barbara Boxer.

Posted by: jennifert7 | Jul 22, 2009 7:03:31 PM

Danita,

Just because you and Ryan throw out the "racist" label on to those who disagree with you and the President's policies does not necessarily make the comment racial, or the poster a racist. Nancy Pelosi was accused by the President of the BCC this week of making racial comments. Do you believe her comments were racial? If not, why not? If so, how do you feel about her now?

Posted by: jennifert7 | Jul 22, 2009 7:00:12 PM

paul . ..

If you haven't noticed racist comments posted here, you haven't been paying attention.

I've been coming here for months and have seen scores of racist comments.

Guess what? Racists comments exist . .. and they get posted to this blog. So, stop your 'golly gee' nonsense.

Posted by: danita | Jul 22, 2009 6:52:15 PM

"Well known tactic when your defense is failing throw out the racist accusation to discredit debate..."

Which is rapidly wearing out completely. It's actually rather despicable -- not just because it's an intellectually dishonest attemnpt at deflection, or because it's an immoral attempt to slander -- boith of which it is. It's also despicable because it, like "the boy who cried wolf", has actually been misused and abused so much by the far left that it is losing meaning and credibility. If someone actually suffers unfairly from genuine racism in 2009, the public holds their claim highly suspect or even goes so far as to dismiss it outright as yet another exagerration or lie.

It's just another instance of the far left undermining equal rights and riding the backs of minorities to further their own interests. As usual.

Posted by: paul | Jul 22, 2009 6:47:17 PM

Someone ought to inform President
Obama that We Don't have Dictators here!
The majority of the American people do
not want the Universal Plan he and the
Dems are pushing in Congress.
We want reform but not the reform
Obama is proposing.
Our president is supposed to do the
will of the people not vice versa!

Posted by: reaganfan | Jul 22, 2009 6:34:23 PM

Hi Ryan,

They do not issue any long form birth certificates...

Well not exactly true. If you pay the modest fee, you can get one. But Mr. Obama has taken the opposite action, he has spent large sums to block any attempt by anyone to get a copy of the long form. You seem like a reasonable person, why would he do that?

Posted by: Terry | Jul 22, 2009 5:51:35 PM

"All I could find was the certificate of live birth. I asked you to point me to the legal birth certificate -"

The COLB is a legal birth certificate. Its the only 1 issued by Hawaii when requested.

"you know the one signed by the doctor, and that lists the hospital where the birth took place. I can't seem to find that VERY pertinent information for some reason."

The doctors signature and hospital are pertinent information?

Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 22, 2009 5:50:54 PM

"Both fact check.org and politifact have it on their websites."

All I could find was the certificate of live birth. I asked you to point me to the legal birth certificate - you know the one signed by the doctor, and that lists the hospital where the birth took place. I can't seem to find that VERY pertinent information for some reason.


"The only ones who think its a legitimate question are right wing racists who are furious a black man is in office."

Yes, clearly one would have to be racist to have a question about the legality and Constitutionality of a presidential election outcome. That was certainly the motivation of myself and many others who took issue with Bush's theft of the election in 2000. Your attempt to portray it as such reeks of absolute desperation.

Shouldn't you be saving the "racism" bromide for when the heat really turns up on Obama's corruption? If you wear it out now it won't have the same effect during the impeachment hearings a year or two from now.

Posted by: paul | Jul 22, 2009 5:48:16 PM

Our Katy:

"You're so confident, Mr. President, and so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken? Do you ever wake up and say, ‘Damn, this is hard'."

I am not making that up. Even though it looks like a parody.

Posted by: Sue | Jul 22, 2009 5:47:48 PM

"No one really disputes that there is a birth certificate on file in Honolulu"

Actually quite a few birthers claim that.

Including Polarik the anonymous freeper with faked credentials who is one of the original sources of the supposed forging of the posted COLB.

Posted by: Ryan C | Jul 22, 2009 5:46:22 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS