Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Would ObamaCare raise the national deficit?

Details

  • Description

    Senator Mike Lee on Foxnews.com Live

  • Duration 9:19
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

And we're gonna talk right now.

About that Affordable Care Act something we've been that discussing quite a bit.

And the fact that it's before the Supreme Court right now and the question remains.

If it is upheld and allowed to go through what impact would it ultimately have.

On the deficit well we've heard varying things depending on who you talk to.

Right now we're going to talk with that congress senator Mike Lee Republican from you -- He joins us right here -- -- thank you for being with us think you so we have a new study out right now.

By a Charles -- house who is considered a conservative economists we should point out he has done a detailed analysis of the obamacare law.

And he predicts that it would add at least 340.

Billion dollars to the national deficit it would add 340.

Billion dollars and we should point out that the Congressional Budget Office which is considered nonpartisan.

Did an estimate last year and they say that it would -- deep crease deficits by 210 billion dollars so what's the real.

Cancer care for of course dealing with some Fuzzy math but we have to remember that whenever we have a new.

Government program especially something that -- in most respects like an entitlement program.

It's going to be expensive it's going to cost money.

And the estimates in advance of creating the program -- very often.

Significantly lower than the actual cost so it's not surprising to me at all.

That other economists are now looking at this and saying hey this is actually gonna cost money this after the president repeatedly told us this will not add one -- to the national deficit.

Yeah the CBO.

Is it considered nonpartisan and yet you have a lot of other economists out there questioning fair assessment what's your view of the CBO.

We all -- and purity and I think we have to look to the fact that this creates.

Certain.

-- entitlements or quasi entitlements that hadn't previously existed under the law.

I think it's almost impossible that this.

Is not going to add to the deficit today and as I mean I look at the basic findings of this analysis by this economist.

I mean it makes sense to me that it it would be -- -- significantly to the deficit.

Perhaps as much as 340 billion dollar now specifically why what are the elements of it that you feel are going to be up costing money.

Well I think this subsidies for the uninsured are going to end up costing them a lot of money and they point that out.

There -- some of this so called -- -- -- that are in fact going to take place.

In in all of those things are going to contribute to the additional cost.

Plus.

The additional cost of administering these government programs he's also always more expensive and people predict.

Yeah that's true so the Affordable Care Act of course is before the Supreme Court right now the individual mandate some arguing is unconstitutional.

If the courts agree with them and strike down that individual mandate the question is and the rest of the law be enacted.

Without it what do you see happening if it's found unconstitutional.

Well it's been unconstitutional I I think that the Supreme Court first of all is most likely based on wanna sell auto oral argument.

To find that the whole Affordable Care Act falls with it.

Congress couldn't have enacted it -- it the law wouldn't have functioned independently.

And that it's there for no inseparable.

I think that's the most likely outcome is that if the court finds the mandate unconstitutional the rest of the law goes down as well.

And then what happens because of the Democrats feel we do keep hear them saying that they will then -- -- to enact some of the more popular clauses.

In the law anyway so is it -- start from scratch type of scenario where the Democrats come out.

With a new similar bill or do both sides were together on some kind of a compromise there's the whole thing just -- Well.

I'm not gonna speak for the Democrats I I suspect that they're likely to come out with something that tries to work around whatever the Supreme Court sets.

Perhaps trying to do one of the spending -- what the Supreme Court will have said could not be done under the commerce clause.

I predict that Republicans will be equally likely to say look.

These kinds of reforms need to -- go to the state level it's the states the control most of the major drivers that go into the health care.

Bill for Americans it's the states that licensed doctors and hospitals and clinics.

And nurses it's the states that license.

Health insurance companies and for the most part regulate health insurance companies and it's also this case the control -- laws that govern medical malpractice liability.

All these things are major drivers that go win two that the overall calculation of our health care bill and I think it's at the state level that most of these things need to be regulated.

So -- these Supreme Court upholds the law says the individual mandate is constitutional.

Of course Mitt Romney has vowed to have it repealed if he becomes president and there are still efforts.

At other levels to have the entire law repealed -- politically.

What do you see happening if it's upheld this summer.

Well if it's upheld I think you'll see increased calls by Republicans.

For people to vote in a way that reflects how they feel but this law.

The recent polling suggests that most Americans believe this Supreme Court will in and I believe -- it.

Overrule should invalidate the individual mandate I think you'll see a lot more calls for people to.

Exercise their vote in a way that will guarantee that this will in fact be repealed and.

All right -- another topic which is the General Services Administration GSA obviously.

In -- pot of hot water right now.

For the one thing you know they held this party in Las Vegas for 300 employees and spend more than 800 million dollars on it.

But in addition to that we are now hearing more about this a separate.

Employees.

Rewards program meant to provide incentives and rewards for employees who did good work it's called the -- -- program.

But a new study.

Prompted by report in the Washington Post.

Has found that a lot of these rewards including things like iPods it's you electronics and are high and rewards.

Were actually.

Being.

Health -- that I'm not exactly sure how to say it but they -- not ending up where -- -- -- and -- from the whole program is is under scrutiny now what do you make of all that.

Well I think it was significant that over the last five or six or seven years this is a program that went from spending.

-- a couple 100000 dollars.

To something that was spending about a million dollars just for a single conference.

-- this is reflective of how government sometimes expands government is an entity that.

Doesn't operate to this according to the same laws of economics as the private sector does and so that's why we've always got to be on the lookout for things like this.

That result in incremental but it's significant expansion over time.

And -- if you look at the videos that a company that conference.

They're kind of disturbing me right reflect a certain cavalier indifference right to -- that the people's money that they're spending.

Well and -- and then that raises the the question I mean do you think people have lost sight of the fact that this is tax Payer dollars -- this is coming out of the wallets of ordinary citizens -- they think that money just coming from some big -- somewhere.

Well it that perhaps they do view it that what -- latter description I think is it is not incorrect.

When you have a pie the size of the federal government's budget.

What when you have the federal government spending between 3.5 and three point seven trillion dollars a year.

The crumbs that fall from the table and are viewed by some as insignificant -- really really big.

This one of the reasons why we need to have government at the national level that isn't so big and so expensive.

Well -- and you use of the word their -- because there are people saying you know 800000 dollars I'll come on and you know for the federal government 800000 dollars isn't crop.

But both -- set up.

There's crumbs add up and it's significant here that we're dealing with the GSA right he's the GSA is the government's landlord in many respects it's the government civilian workforce management company.

And they're there to look at the problems they're there to make sure that we're not wasting money so for the GSA to be doing this.

Really speaks loudly to a lot of people.

So yeah and you've got your small government advocates out there using the GSA now as just the poster child for why we need to.

Smaller government so what happens next with the GSA.

Well chairman ice.

You in the House of Representatives will be.

Holding a hearing this coming Monday and will be asking a number of questions of some of the officials involved in this.

Undoubtedly more details -- come out of that but I I think it's one of many factors it's contributing to a lot of people in congress.

Capital wanted to ask more questions about why it is that we're doing so when he -- through the federal government why are we spending so much money it's not just GSA.

It's.

Every operation of the federal government.

Has gotten too big and we need to shrink it back.

And yet not only to big in terms of the numbers involved but in terms of the inability to provide accountability.

That's -- all right interesting senator likely Republican of -- thank you so much for joining us think you all right.

Load More