The Far Left Also Realizes Boehner Won. Too Bad Republicans Don't.

The Nation, here:

Because the deal only includes minor concessions, the Beltway consensus is that it represents a resounding defeat for Republicans, who “surrendered” their original demands to defund or delay Obamacare. In the skirmish of opinion polls, that may be true, for now. But in the war of ideas, the Senate deal is but a stalemate, one made almost entirely on conservative terms. The GOP now goes into budget talks with sequestration as the new baseline, primed to demand longer-term cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And they still hold the gun of a US default to the nation’s head in the next debt ceiling showdown.

---------------------------

Boehner, last August, who got exactly this, despite having to try the so-called Tea Party gambit of defunding ObamaCare, which failed because of all the RINOs in the Senate, and was destined to fail from the beginning for that very reason, if only people like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee had bothered to check their voting records:

“When we return, our intent is to move quickly on a short-term continuing resolution that keeps the government running and maintains current sequester spending levels,” Boehner (R-Ohio) said on a conference call with GOP lawmakers, according to a person on the call.

“Our message will remain clear,” Boehner said. “Until the president agrees to better cuts and reforms that help grow the economy and put us on path to a balanced budget, his sequester — the sequester he himself proposed, insisted on and signed into law — stays in place.”

How Rep. Paul Ryan Is Just Like Sen. Ted Cruz

Here in The Wall Street Journal on October 8th, Rep. Paul Ryan says he is willing to swap sequester cuts for cuts to mandatory spending:

If Mr. Obama decides to talk, he'll find that we actually agree on some things. For example, most of us agree that gradual, structural reforms are better than sudden, arbitrary cuts. For my Democratic colleagues, the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act are a major concern. And the truth is, there's a better way to cut spending. We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs.

And the reason is there's more to be gained over the long haul from cuts to the mandatory side, which is 60% of annual outlays anyway:

These reforms are vital. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office predicts discretionary spending—that is, everything except entitlement programs and debt payments—will grow by $202 billion, or roughly 17%. Meanwhile, mandatory spending—which mostly consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will grow by $1.6 trillion, or roughly 79%. The 2011 Budget Control Act largely ignored entitlement spending. But that is the nation's biggest challenge.

But just why Republicans like Paul Ryan expect us to believe they can negotiate cuts to mandatory programs from Democrats who have just rammed a new one called ObamaCare down our throats is quite beyond me. It's as unrealistic as Senator Ted Cruz thinking libertarian Republicans could get Obama to defund that program without unity in the party on the subject in the first place. Cynics quickly decided Cruz was just fundraising for 2016. And Rep. Ryan could just as plausibly be trying to re-establish some street cred with conservatives after his involvement with the Facebook-financed immigration amnesty debacle.

There's plenty of unrealism to go around in the Republican Party, which still hasn't figured out that Obama and the Democrats are the enemy, which is surprising since that's how he views them. But that seems to be a particularly libertarian penchant, expressed as it is in interminable losing electoral challenges throughout the country which do nothing but help elect Democrats. Maybe Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are just libertarian spoilers on the national stage, for whom success is keeping Republicans from succeeding.

Figuring out how to proceed when your country has been taken over by a hostile foreign power without having fired a shot remains the central problem for an opposition which doesn't realize it is one, especially when your own ranks have been infiltrated by an enemy.

Where are the non-libertarian economic conservatives? 

ObamaCare Will Force Millions More Into Medicaid, And DENY Them The Right To Buy Private Insurance

It will deny them because ObamaCare-compliant plans will simply be too expensive for them to afford, and those will be the only ones available. 

John Goodman tried to warn us over two years ago, here:

"While defenders of the new law have chattered endlessly about people who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions (turns out there are only 12,500 of them) almost no one seems to have noticed that 16 million people are not only going to be forced into Medicaid, they are effectively going to be denied the right to buy any private insurance — whether or not they have a pre-existing condition."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But today it is coming true.

For example, in one county in Michigan an older, married, full-time worker with one child still in the home must make at least $19,530/year to get a tax credit to make the bargain basement Bronze plan monthly health insurance "affordable" for his family, but go below that threshold and he loses the subsidy entirely and ends up in Medicaid whether he likes it or not. That means he must make almost $9.39/hour, almost $2/hour above the Michigan minimum wage of $7.40/hour, or he's out of luck.

A single parent in the same situation must make no less than $15,510 to stay out of Medicaid and get the subsidy.

There were almost 61 million Americans making less than $20,000/year in 2011, and nearly 50 million making less than $15,000, meaning many of them will be forced into Medicaid under ObamaCare if they are not among the 70.4 million already in Medicaid in 2011, already 46.5% of all wage earners in the country that year.

Two kinds of insurance, ObamaCare and its crappier forerunner Medicaid, and one unhappy nation.

Healthcare Groundhog Day: Can You Say HMO-bamacare?

So says Scott Gottlieb, MD, for Real Clear Markets, here:

The new health plans offered in the Obamacare exchanges are going to be narrow network, no frills affairs. Obamacare's exchange based plans will be a throwback to the 1990s style of restrictive HMOs. They will give you fewer choices of doctors and hospitals than the kinds of health plans currently sold in the private, commercial marketplace. The doctor networks that Obamacare plans use will resemble Medicaid plans. But it doesn't end there. Pretty soon, these same bare bones health plans will also become standard fare in the commercial marketplace. You'll get them at work.

Presidents Ranked By Change Of Income Gini Ratio Of Families In Post-War

1. JFK/LBJ       -6.6%

2. Truman       -5.0%

3. Clinton       +1.3%

4. Obama        +1.5% (to date)

5. Carter         +1.6%

6. Bush2          +1.8%

7. Nixon/Ford +4.0%

8. IKE              +4.1%

9. Bush1          +6.9%

10. Reagan      +8.6%

Inequality of market income decreased most under Kennedy/Johnson and increased most under Reagan. The measure is before taxes and transfers, however. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development figures after taxes and transfers for certain periods may be observed here. See the helpful discussion by Tim Worstall, here, including this:

"[E]ven in the post-tax and post-benefit numbers the US is still an outlier in the statistical methods used. In looking at inequality, poverty, in the US we include the cash that poor people are given to alleviate their poverty. But we do not include the things that people are given in kind: the Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8 and so on. It’s possible (I’m not sure I’m afraid) that we don’t include the EITC either. We certainly don’t in the poverty statistics but might in the inequality. All of the other countries do include the effects of such policies. Largely because they don’t offer benefits in kind they just give the poor more money and tell them to buy it themselves. This obviously turns up in figures of how much money the poor have."

That said, inequality of market income hasn't gone up very much in the twenty years since 1993, contrary to President Obama's recent comments here. 

The president might want to consider that Bill Clinton did a better job of reducing income inequality than he has. But, then again, Bill Clinton did a better job than Obama in most everything, and ranks number two behind Truman overall for the best economy in the post-war.

Even In September 2009 Obama Showed He Didn't Understand The Size Of The Country

From his speech to Congress, here:

"First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Well, what if you are not among those "hundreds of millions", eh? Then you are out of luck in his mind, evidently. Who could he possibly be referring to?

It is customary to speak of tens of millions when speaking of up to 100 million.

It is customary to speak of a couple hundred million when speaking of up to 200 million.

It is customary to speak of a few hundred million when speaking of up to 300 million.

But "hundreds of millions" refers to far more than 300 million, especially if you are not lucky enough to be among them. By analogy with 100 million, you could be speaking of up to 1,000 million. That's 1 billion for those of you in Rio Linda.

Anyway, all those extra people in the "hundreds of millions" category must be those people you didn't know about from the 57 states Obama says he visited during the campaign "with one left to go", not counting Alaska and Hawaii! Densely populated states, those in excess of the 50 states, they must have been, too, which begs the question why he hadn't visited them yet!

The US population at the time of the speech was about 307 million. So by September of 2009, seven months after having been sworn in, Obama had had plenty of time to figure out the size of the country, but he hadn't.

The guy's a moron, and you know it. He wasn't even "learning on the job". Toking on the job is more like it.

Community College Cuts Part-Timers' Hours To Avoid ObamaCare Costs

The Cheerleaders Against ObamaCare

The Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania will cut 400 part-timers' hours to less than 30 hours per week to save $6 million in costs mandated by ObamaCare.

Story here.

Companies everywhere are in revolt against ObamaCare, which mandates coverage be offered when full-time workers exceed 49 in number, but full-time now "redefined" as 30 hours worked on average per week instead of 34 or 35. Leftism is nothing if not based on constant redefinition of reality.

So the path is clear if you're an employer: reduce full-time positions to 49 and part-time everyone else to no more than 29 hours per week. The result in America will be fewer and fewer full-time jobs and inadequate part-time jobs for more and more people, many of whom will be unable to afford to buy insurance through one-size-fits-all ObamaCare and will be thrown into state Medicaid programs where they will receive healthcare which you wouldn't wish on Fido or Morris.

ObamaCare is an ugly war on jobs, and is reminiscent of nothing so much as Stalin's war on the Kulaks of Ukraine, whom he starved to death when collectivization failed to produce the "mandated" amount of wheat. People will not begin to appreciate the comparison I suppose until our government decides the size threshold of companies must be lowered to, say, 39 full-time employees from 49 to get ObamaCare to "work", and to, say, 20 hours per week from 29 to mandate "more coverage". But by then business will already be flat on its back and the size of the proletariat will have swelled. Single payer can't be far behind.

They are saying out there that Romney lost because he focused on too many numbers, but Obama is using mandated numbers to slowly crucify you.

UGLY.

Blame Walmart For The Part-Timing Of America, And ObamaCare For Ramping It Up

From a very good story by the New York Times, reproduced here:

The rise of big-box retailers like Walmart . . . with their long operating hours and complex staffing needs, has contributed to the increase in part-timers.

Mr. Flickinger, the retail consultant, said when Walmart spread nationwide and opened hundreds of 24-hour stores in the 1990s, that created intense competitive pressures and prompted many retailers to copy the company’s cost-cutting practices, including its heavy reliance on part-timers.

Susan J. Lambert, an expert on part-time work and a professor of organizational theory at the University of Chicago, said the use of part-timers had also escalated because of the declining power of labor unions. “They set a standard for what a real job was — Monday through Friday with full-time hours,” she said. “We’ve moved away from that.”

ObamaCare will now put this part-timing trend into high gear as more and more employers seek to avoid ObamaCare's 30 hour rule, at which employers must provide a healthcare benefit. More and more employers are going to schedule people for up to 29 hours per week, and not one more.

If you read the full story excerpted above you'll wonder to yourself how $15,000 per year part-time earners are going to be able to afford to purchase healthcare at Obama's healthcare exchanges, especially since holding two part-time jobs is already impossible in the experience of most part-timers. The answer is they won't be able to afford to purchase insurance, and will be shuffled off to crappy care under Medicaid, which is going bust already.

The healthcare debacle in America is only just beginning, thanks to Obama and the Democrats.

Obama Believes Winning Will Be Mandate To Raise Taxes, "Reform" Immigration

Obama has stated explicitly his intent is, if he wins, to raise taxes and "reform" immigration, which is code for amnesty, as reported here:

"If we won, then I believe that's a mandate for doing it in a balanced way."

"We can do some more cuts, we could look at how we deal with the health care costs in particular under Medicaid and Medicare in a serious way, but we are also going to need some revenue."

"If we get [the debt and deficit] done, then immigration reform, I think, is there to get done."

"And I think [the Republican Party] is going to need to get it done because you can't continue to alienate the fastest-growing segment of the country. And it's the right thing to do."

Of course, there are mandates and there are mandates. Obama likes mandates. He likes telling people how things will be, which is why we have ObamaCare shoved down our throats.

In 2008 Obama interpreted his victory as a mandate when his margin of victory in the formerly Red States which went for Bush was merely 1.4 million votes. He lost that "mandate" such as it was in 2010, and if the Republicans keep the US House in 2012 that will still be the conclusion whether or not Romney wins the presidency.

With "You Didn't Build That" Obama Revealed We're No Free Market Economy

Barack The Builder-Thief

Consider Sheldon Richman, here, emphasis added:

"What we have—and have had for a long time—is corporatism, an interventionist system shot through with government-granted privileges mostly for the well-connected–who tend to be rich businesspeople. This system is maintained in a variety of ways: through taxes, subsidies, cartelizing regulations, intellectual “property” protections, trade restrictions, government-bank collusion, the military-industrial complex, land close-offs, zoning, building codes, restrictions on workers, and more. As a result, people can get rich at the expense of the government’s victims. Even some who have prospered apparently by market means have actually done so through government intervention, such as transportation subsidies and eminent domain. Wealth can be transferred in many ways besides welfare and Medicaid, some of them quite subtle. Most transfers are upward."

Obama's flub in "you didn't build that" wasn't some supposed expression of disdain for free-market capitalism, but rather a too-open affirmation of the collusion which exists in America between government and business, a collusion redolent of the fascism of an earlier era.

The line was supposed to be, before it blew up in his face, a gentle reminder to his peeps that they owe their continued success to his stewardship of this system of corporatist largesse. 

In stating the obvious Obama has let the cat out of the bag and proven himself an unreliable leader for the game of charades we call the free market economy. He let his guard down and opened a window on this uncomfortable truth about America, that in economics we consider our advocates of free market capitalism analogous to the preachers of fundamentalist Christianity. It's a free country and that's all well and good, as long as you're not really serious.

Obama's mistake is that he said all that out loud. He can be replaced.

(image source)

Government Payments Like Social Security/Medicare Consume 89 Percent Of Tax Revenues

The government collects only $2.66 trillion in taxes but spends $2.36 trillion just on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like, summed up as Personal Current Transfer Payments.

If we ran a balanced budget, that would leave just $300 billion for everything else, such as defending the country from our enemies, for which we actually spend about $700 billion currently.

Total current expenditures are running at $3.8 trillion, nearly 41 percent more than we presently take in.

Dissenting Supremes Affirm The Principle That Coercion Voids Contracts

Here:

When federal legislation gives the States a real choice whether to accept or decline a federal aid package, the federal-state relationship is in the nature of a contractual relationship. See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U. S. 181, 186 (2002); Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 17. And just as a contract is voidable if coerced, “[t]he legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power . . . rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’” Ibid. (emphasis added). If a federal spending program coerces participation the States have not “exercise[d] their choice”—let alone made an “informed choice.” Id., at 17, 25.

However, nowhere in the opinion do I see a discussion of how ObamaCare is a coerced contract between the government and the individual, and thus no contract at all. The dissent instead focuses on how the States are being coerced into a contract with respect to the Medicaid expansion.

The reason for this is that the Court is deciding a case brought by the States which think they have been wronged in that respect. The Court is not responding to hypothetical individuals who believe they may be wronged in future, and who cannot bring suit until the provisions of ObamaCare have taken effect and they become actual individuals and victims of the law.

It may be surmised that the Court's dissenting opinions in this and other areas are intended to telegraph possible avenues for future challenges to which they may be sympathetic.

He Endorsed Obama And Now Warns About Our Enemy The (Fascist) State

It seems that fascism is becoming something of a meme over at Forbes.

Lawrence Hunter weighs in here against Walter Williams' categorization of Social Security under "handouts" and the recipients of it under "thieves":

... the modern fascist welfare state in America ... is every bit as real and destructive as he describes. ...

Food Stamps, The Women, Infants and Children (WIN) program, Medicaid, agricultural subsidies and price supports, most refundable tax credits, federal deposit insurance, all are examples of federal government “handouts;” Social Security is not; it is a government-mandated Ponzi Scheme—a “giveback”—and there is a huge difference. ...

"[W]orkfare” [is] a dodgy transaction between politicians and public employees/contractors and government subsidized-employers where government gives swag to bureaucrats, contractors and subsidized workers in exchange for their political backing and protection. ...

“Workfare” is the ultimate replacement of the private sector by the government where jobs are created and wages, salaries, benefits and pensions are paid or subsidized to strengthen the fascist welfare state. ...

Allowing one’s rage at the state (especially with respect to Social Security) to muddle one’s understanding of precisely how the state operates and what it is that makes the modern welfare state so vigorous and robust is a mistake that actually strengthens it. The vast majority of people support the modern fascist welfare state precisely because these distinctions [between handouts, givebacks and workfare] are real and matter to people. ...

[T]he modern fascist welfare state is a universal prisoners’ dilemma. The rational strategy when stuck in such a vicious game is to betray everyone else caught in the clutches of the government operating the game in the hope that you can minimize the damage government does to you. ...

[L]ibertarians like my friend Walter Williams have it upside down and backwards when they call Social Security a handout and seniors thieves for insisting on their monthly check. The problem isn’t that everyone is a thief in a fascist welfare state; it is that most everyone is a victim of the criminal enterprise called government and must defend themselves against the state—res publica culpa.


Lawrence Hunter became infamous in 2008 for endorsing Obama, here, primarily over opposition to Bush's foreign adventurism.

The whole thing is not a little ironic. Mr. Hunter allowed his rage at Bush to muddle his thinking about Obama v. McCain and pick the wrong guy. Can anyone seriously argue that the fascist welfare state would have strengthened in the exponential way it has under Obama under a president John McCain, who understood the prisoner's dilemma in fact, not just in theory?

The state? Res publica culpa.

Lawrence Hunter? Mea maxima culpa.

Ronald Reagan Was No Conservative: He's Responsible For The Healthcare Mess

Treatment regardless of ability to pay is all his fault, along with a number of other things:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004, or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.

Will Government Be Short $134 Billion In August as Bob Brinker Claims Today?

He made the claim on his radio show, "Money Talk." See the recap here.

Others, as for example here, maintain there's plenty of cash flow to pay for everything critical both in law and for creditworthiness:

"The Daily Treasury Statement for June 30—which any American, including the president, can look up on the U.S. Treasury Department’s website at this link—says the government took in $196.994 billion in revenue during the month ... more than enough to pay not only all Social Security benefits and veterans benefits and programs for the month, but also, on top of that, the interest on the federal debt, Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, all federal workers’ salaries, federal workers’ insurance benefits, Justice Department programs, and Defense Department venders.

"The combined costs for all of these federal expenditures in June was $195.502 billion.

"That means that out of the federal government’s $196.994 billion in revenue in June, the government would have had a surplus of $1.492 billion after it had paid the interest on the national debt, plus all Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, veterans’ programs, Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, federal workers’ salaries, federal workers’ insurance benefits, Justice Department programs, and Defense Department vend[o]rs."


Isn't it the potential of cutting off the cash cow for extraneous government spending which really has liberals like Brinker in a fit? After all, he called Senator Harry "The War is Lost" Reid of Nevada "a good man" more than once on his show. Brinker loves the guy.

How is it that Brinker can assert, as he did today, that advocating against raising the debt ceiling, as certain Republicans are doing presently, disqualifies one for the presidency when Obama actually voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, along with all the rest of his Democrat colleagues in the Senate? The Roll Call vote is here.

The minions of liberals in the federal workforce might actually have to THINK going forward and prove their competence for their exorbitant salaries by PRIORITIZING spending for a change if Republicans muster the courage to force them TO DO THEIR JOBS and leave the debt ceiling where it is. Raising the debt ceiling is the true default: It means you can't pay your bills without more borrowing.

Maybe Bob Brinker is afraid the Democrats are not really up to it. They certainly haven't been in the past. We're still waiting for a budget proposal from the Senate. The Senate under Reid hasn't passed one in over two years.

Treasury's Own Figures Show It Has Plenty of Cash Flow To Pay Seniors

[A]ccording to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

All the figures follow at the link here.

Obama Conceded Government Spending is the Problem, not Tax Revenue, Nearly Two Years Ago

"Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin."

-- Barack Obama, quoted here, June 24th, 2009, and affirmed as "mostly true" by the source.

You'd Know It's a Depression If . . .

. . . 50 million Americans getting Medicaid, stopped getting it (cost $273 billion);

. . . 40 million Americans getting Food Stamps, stopped getting them (cost $70 billion);

. . . 10 million Americans on Unemployment, stopped getting it (cost $160 billion);

. . . 4 million on Welfare, stopped getting it (cost $22 billion).

The total current cost of these safety net programs: $525 billion.

Read all about it, here.

The Spirit of Tyranny

The healthcare legislation which has recently passed the U.S. Senate, unanimously opposed by Republicans, reveals that what inspires today's Democrat party is pure tyranny.

While Congress has power granted to it by the U.S. Constitution to tax and to spend, and to regulate commerce between the states, it does not have the power to require commerce. But this is what the healthcare legislation does: it requires you to engage in health care commerce by buying health insurance. If you wish to avoid buying automobile insurance, you may do so as long as you do not drive the car. Not so with the health care legislation. You will either buy the insurance, or be fined.

The legislation also violates the constitutional principle of the general welfare. Some states are relieved of their duty to contribute to Medicaid under the Senate version, which gives them an unfair advantage at the expense of all the other states who do. It's bad enough that special interest groups dominate our politics. This legislation makes states themselves a party to it, and erodes the very concept of the Union.

A third problem has to do with state sovereignty. It is one thing for states to comply with federal requirements in order to receive, for example, highway funds in exchange for passing speed limit regulations. It is entirely another to be required to pass legislation and regulations to comply with the health care bill, and to be threatened to have it done for them by the feds if they don't. This is already rankling a number of states, who are toying with the idea of health care nullification.

That it is the Democrats who are for all this stuff should frighten the American people. The Democrats may like to think of themselves as the party of new ideas, but those ideas are as despotic as they are unconstitutional. They should be run out of town on a rail, preferably in tar and feathers.

For a lengthier discussion of this topic, go here.

Liberal Projectionist in Chief

The Hill reported last week on Wednesday that President Obama told the GOP to "stop trying to frighten the American people" about the jobs situation:

Obama to GOP: 'Stop trying to frighten the American people'

By Sam Youngman - 12/09/09 01:14 PM ET

President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that Obama made the admonition during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday . . .

Then we fast forward one week to today with the president trying to frighten the American people with the crazy claim that "health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget" unless we "do this" health care bill, in this report from ABC News:

ABC's Karen Travers reports from Washington:

President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year."

The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” . . .

“Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” the president said.

Oh how the pot(head) doth call the kettle black.