Debunking the 10 Years of Taxes Myth

Last Friday I was on a panel for a poverty discussion that happened to turn into a debate about HCR. I was more than obliged to see it go in this direction but was struck by some of the responses I was hearing from the group. One talking point in particular stuck with me throughout the weekend. It was one I've heard time and time again from people who claim to oppose the Affordable Care Act. The suggestion goes something like this. Democrats tricked people into thinking the Act pays for itself or reduces the deficit by 10 years of taxes versus six years of spending.  Not word for word but along those lines.

That's simply not true.  But even if it were, the Act reduces the deficit more in the second 10 years than it does the first.  So, according to Fox Newsers, the revenue would be vastly enough in the second half versus the first.  I'm not sure Republicans are capable of thinking along the lines of a bill that pays for itself, however.

Then I came across this CBO report that makes the case a lot better than I can.

As you can see from the CBO numbers, there is not one single year the Act collects revenues without spending.  In other words, there is not an ounce of truth to the charge the Act collects taxes for 10 years while only doling out 6 years of benefits.  There are years where the benefits and the taxes collected don't equal much but that makes up for itself only after two or three years then henceforth it is paid for.  Doing this used to be called fiscally responsible.  Now it's called a tyrannical takeover of government.