Bush admin: Don't tell the truth or you're fired

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Talk about restoring honor and dignity to the whitehouse - Link
The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.

When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that.

Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who'd vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion.

So the Bush admin knew that thier estimates were wrong 5 months before the medicare bill passed but withheld this information to Congress so the bill could pass. If the expert tells congress of this increased cost, he's fired. Then, two months after the bill passes, the admin "discovers" that the medicare bill really does cost $500 billion.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Yawn.

Bush is a liar. Yawn.

That's one reason why he needs to retire. Kerry might be marginally better, but I'm all for trading in the Republican pony.

The more things change the more they stay the same..... No wonder kids don't vote. :(

-Robert
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Kerry might be marginally better

Hahaha.

That is the most humorous part about this whole election. Even if you dislike Bush, saying the Kerry is better than Bush is amazing... lol
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
The Bush administration ran on a platform that was all about "Returning honor and integrity to the White House"

They failed to mention it was honor amongst thieves, and a practice of enitre dishonesty.

The main qualification W. had as a candidate was that he wasn't Clinton.

Kerry's (or whomever's) best argument is undoubtedly that he is not W.
 

DoubleL

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2001
1,202
0
0
Well it didn't take a hole lot to restore honor and dignity to the white house, Remember he took it from the Dems., You know the ones that took the W's off the computer keyboards, Mixed all our recorders up, Glued the doors shut, Junked the rooms, Used the bathroom in the middle of the floors, Now there is a party with honor and didnity, Bush can only run one more time, What are you libs going to cry about when he is gone
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well it didn't take a hole lot to restore honor and dignity to the white house, Remember he took it from the Dems., You know the ones that took the W's off the computer keyboards, Mixed all our recorders up, Glued the doors shut, Junked the rooms, Used the bathroom in the middle of the floors, Now there is a party with honor and didnity, Bush can only run one more time, What are you libs going to cry about when he is gone


And all of that cost the US how much?

I think 200+ Billion Dollar lies are pretty serious.. but you can pray for W is you want too... That has go to be really cool... http://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
<FONT size=1>"took the W's off the computer keyboards, Mixed all our recorders up, Glued the doors shut, Junked the rooms, Used the bathroom in the middle of the floors, Now there is a party with honor and did"

Hey, ya know what - it was later proven that those 'aledged' things didn't really happen. Just like the 'Complete stripping of Air Force-1 down to a hulk sitting on concrete blocks didn't really happen either.
When it was all said and done there were a few computers that had keypad characters missing, there were others that had letters other than the 'W' missing, and many other parts of equipment that were left over from the old Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush-1, Administrations that preceded them - it was partisan disclosure that tried to place blame rather than addressing the fact. Distort that evidence that you wish to present to form the solution that you wish to implement.

Precurser of deceipt. They haven't changed and are consistant.
Liar, falsify, then lie again.
Yeah, I really have a lot of trust in the 'Party of Integrity" - Ethics ?, I guess that they think that if they never use them, that they have them all, like in a bank vault somewhere - to display if they ever need to. If they never used them they still have them all - somewhere.

I'm still waiting to see the first use of them - over three years later.</FONT>
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Add to that list Blowjobs in the Oval office and lying under oath about blowjobs.

It makes no difference to the argument that honor and integrity has not been restored to the White House by the Bush administration. Not even close. The opposite is true , infact.

Subornation:  

[n]  perjured testimony that someone was persuaded to give

[n]  underhandedly or improperly inducing someone to do something improper or unlawful
 

DoubleL

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2001
1,202
0
0
And all of that cost the US how much?

I think 200+ Billion Dollar lies are pretty serious.. but you can pray for W is you want too... That has go to be really cool...

I could go on and on but I won't and yes I will pray for Bush and the country and the soldiers
 

User1001

Golden Member
May 24, 2003
1,017
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: chess9
Kerry might be marginally better

Hahaha.

That is the most humorous part about this whole election. Even if you dislike Bush, saying the Kerry is better than Bush is amazing... lol

heh. I never liked Clinton (when he was in office)... but all the candidates since Clinton have sucked.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: DoubleL
And all of that cost the US how much?

I think 200+ Billion Dollar lies are pretty serious.. but you can pray for W is you want too... That has go to be really cool...

I could go on and on but I won't and yes I will pray for Bush and the country and the soldiers

Be sure to pray for Israel too.. and pray that we can go to war for Israel again soon.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Usually any time you upstage your bosses and/or tell the truth they they do not want heard will lead to trouble for you.
 

DoubleL

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2001
1,202
0
0
Be sure to pray for Israel too.. and pray that we can go to war for Israel again soon.


I know I shouldn't even make a come back to something this stupid, No it is not worth my time
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Probe under way on Medicare cost

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Department of Health and Human Services has launched an internal investigation to see whether a senior government staffer was pressured to withhold information from Congress about the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced the probe Tuesday.

Rick Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has said that then-agency chief Thomas Scully threatened his job if he answered questions from congressional Democrats about the cost of the bill before a series of key votes last summer.

"Tom Scully sent an e-mail directing that we not respond to these requests and warning that the consequences of insubordination were extremely severe," Foster said. "I took that to mean that if I sent the responses, they would go ahead and fire me."

At issue is an assessment by Foster that the bill -- in its form in June -- would cost $551 billion, far more than the $400 billion limit set by Congress.

Senior members of both parties involved in the Medicare negotiations said they would have liked to have known about that figure and that it's customary for Medicare actuaries to inform Congress of their calculations.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The bill squeaked through the House of Representatives over considerable resistance from conservative Republicans, who said the cost of the drug benefit program worried them.

"Doggone it, if there was a difference in numbers and we knew about it upfront, we should have had the opportunity to explore what that difference was," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Georgia.

Scully, who has since left the agency, denied that he threatened to fire Foster.

"I never once threatened to fire him," Scully said. "I never once had the conversation -- 'Don't release the overall score of the bill' -- because it didn't exist."

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said he welcomed the investigation.

"I am pleased that Secretary Thompson has acknowledged the growing scandal over the Medicare drug bill and has pledged an independent inquiry into the misconduct," Daschle said.

"Allegations that the administration withheld critical information from policymakers and threatened the career of a public servant must be fully and thoroughly investigated."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, an early supporter of the bill but who voted against it in its final form, said the investigation is only the first step.

"It won't answer the key question that goes to the heart of the credibility of the Bush administration: What did the president know, when did he know it, and why did he and the senior members of his administration continue to claim that the legislation would cost $400 billion when their best estimate was that it would cost much more?"

Although the administration initially projected the cost of the bill at $400 billion, its new budget puts the price tag closer to $530 billion.

The president signed the bill into law in December.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Ah...it keeps getting better. There's just a history of mismanaging or intentionally ignoring facts with this administration.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/politics/18MEDI.html?ex=1080190800&en=d3f08e10a4c945c6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Mysterious Fax Adds to Intrigue Over the Medicare Bill's Cost

ASHINGTON, March 17 ? Late one Friday afternoon in January, after the House of Representatives had adjourned for the week, Cybele Bjorklund, a House Democratic health policy aide, heard the buzz of the fax machine at her desk. Coming over the transom, with no hint of the sender, was a document she had been seeking for months: an estimate by Medicare's chief actuary showing the cost of prescription drug benefits for the elderly.

Dated June 11, 2003, the document put the cost at $551.5 billion over 10 years. It appeared to confirm what Ms. Bjorklund and her bosses on the House Ways and Means Committee had long suspected: the actuary, Richard S. Foster, had concluded the legislation would be far more expensive than Congress's $400 billion estimate ? and had kept quiet while lawmakers voted on the bill and President Bush signed it into law.

Ms. Bjorklund had been pressing Mr. Foster for his numbers since June. When he refused, telling her he could be fired, she said, she confronted his boss, Thomas A. Scully, then the Medicare administrator. "If Rick Foster gives that to you," Ms. Bjorklund remembered Mr. Scully telling her, "I'll fire him so fast his head will spin." Mr. Scully denies making such threats.

These conversations among three government employees ? an obscure Congressional aide, a little-known actuary and a high-level official ? remained secret until now, and Ms. Bjorklund still does not know who sent the fax. But Mr. Foster went public last week, and details of his struggle for independence within the Bush administration are now emerging, raising questions about whether the White House intentionally withheld crucial data from lawmakers.

The administration says Democrats, whose Medicare proposals would have cost nearly $1 trillion, are exploiting the controversy for political gain at the expense of the elderly. But some Republicans are openly questioning the White House, and the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said he saw a "growing scandal over the Medicare drug bill."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat and a leading critic of the Medicare bill, put the issue in stark, Watergate-era terms, saying, "What did the president know; when did he know it?"

Those questions have not been answered. But interviews with federal officials, including Mr. Foster and Mr. Scully, make clear that the actuary's numbers were circulating within the administration, and possibly on Capitol Hill, throughout the second half of last year, as Congress voted on the prescription drug bill, first in June and again in November.

But the figures were either discounted or ignored, as lawmakers and the White House grappled with the political imperative to pass the legislation.

At a hearing on Feb. 10, Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told lawmakers that "we knew all along" that the administration's cost estimates would be higher, but said he did not have a final figure, of $534 billion, until Dec. 24, after the bill was signed into law. Nonetheless, Mr. Thompson said he and Mr. Scully had shared their estimates with House and Senate negotiators and with the White House throughout the legislative process.

"There were individuals in the White House who knew that our preliminary estimates were higher," Mr. Thompson testified.

Yet as late as November, Mr. Scully continued to cite the $400 billion figure, which came from the Congressional Budget Office. In a letter to The New York Times published on Nov. 20, Mr. Scully wrote, "We are spending $400 billion."

One House negotiator, Representative Nancy L. Johnson, Republican of Connecticut, said she knew of the higher estimates last year, but discounted them because she thought Mr. Foster's assumptions were flawed. "Absolutely, we knew about these numbers," she said.

But Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who was also a negotiator, said on Wednesday that he did not learn of the higher estimates until January, when he attended a Republican leaders' retreat. An aide to Mr. DeLay said Joshua B. Bolten, President Bush's budget director, presented the $534 billion final figure at that meeting.

"The leaders about took his head off," said the aide, Stuart Roy, adding, "It was very clear that none of the leaders in that room had ever heard those numbers before."
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Agency Sees Withholding of Medicare Data From Congress as Illegal

WASHINGTON, May 3 ? The Congressional Research Service says the Bush administration apparently violated federal law by ordering the chief Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress indicating that the new Medicare law could cost far more than White House officials had said.

In a report on Monday, the research service said that Congress's "right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable." Since 1912, it said, federal laws have protected the rights of federal employees to communicate with Congress, and recent laws have "reaffirmed and strengthened" those protections.

The actuary, Richard S. Foster, has testified that he was ordered to withhold the cost estimates last year, when Congress was considering legislation to add a drug benefit to Medicare. The order, he said, came from Thomas A. Scully, who was then the administrator of Medicare.

Mr. Foster said Mr. Scully threatened to discipline him for insubordination if he gave Congress the data.

The research service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, said Mr. Scully's order "would appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of federal law." The actuary, it said, has a duty to "make professional and reliable cost estimates, unfettered by any particular partisan agenda."

In March, Bush administration officials suggested that they would provide the actuary's cost estimates to Congress. "We have nothing to hide, so I want to make darn sure that everything comes out," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, said on March 16. But a month later, in a letter to Congress, the administration refused to provide the documents.

Mr. Scully has confirmed telling Mr. Foster that "I, as his supervisor, would decide when he would communicate with Congress."

William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said on Monday that the propriety of Mr. Scully's action was being investigated by the agency's inspector general. In any event, Mr. Pierce said, "we are looking to the future, not the past."

On Monday, the administration opened a campaign to persuade millions of older Americans to sign up for prescription drug discount cards.

Secretary Thompson said Medicare beneficiaries nationwide would have access to at least 39 cards offering savings of 10 percent to 25 percent off the retail prices charged to people without drug insurance.

"For the first time," Mr. Thompson said, "we are going to pool the purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to drive down the prices they pay for prescription drugs." Before choosing a card, he said, beneficiaries should carefully compare the prices available with different cards for the drugs they use.

Mr. Thompson said beneficiaries could start using the cards next month and could continue using them until January 2006, when Medicare's drug benefit begins.

A big challenge for beneficiaries is to overcome the confusion surrounding the new cards. Sponsors of the discount cards said that many of the prices posted on the official Web site, www.Medicare.gov, were still incorrect ? an assertion disputed by Mr. Thompson ? and some sponsors were quoting prices different from those posted by the government.

Neil D. LaGrow, 80, of Culpeper, Va., who said he spent $890 a month on 15 medications, predicted that the discount cards would be "tremendously helpful."

Howard J. Bedlin, vice president of the National Council on the Aging, a research and advocacy group, said the cards would be "very valuable" to low-income people. Individuals with annual incomes of $12,569 or less and couples with incomes of $16,862 or less will be eligible for a credit of $600 a person on their cards.

In addition, Mr. Bedlin noted, some major drug companies, like Merck and Novartis, have said they will offer their medicines at no charge or for a very small fee to low-income people who use up the $600 credit. Moreover, he said, some states will pay drug costs for low-income people who exhaust the $600 allowance.

For people with incomes above the thresholds, Mr. Bedlin said, the value of the discount card will vary, depending on what drugs they take.

Congressional Democrats said the savings would prove illusory for most beneficiaries.

"This sounds like a good deal, but it isn't," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader.

Representative Pete Stark of California, senior Democrat on the Ways and Means health subcommittee, said: "The cards provide maximum confusion and minimal savings. These deep discounts were a figment of the Republicans' imagination."

Prices available with the new drug cards are, in many cases, higher than those available to any consumer using online pharmacies.

Peter M. Neupert, chairman of drugstore.com, said: "In general, our prices are lower than those offered by many of the Medicare card sponsors. Our operating costs are a bit lower than those of bricks-and-mortar drugstores."

In addition, Mr. Neupert said, his company's Web site is easier to use than the new Medicare site.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Czar
so they lied to congress?

Appears Mr. Foster was coerced into lying in order to keep his job. Also, the administration withheld documents, apparently (that would be nothing new to this administration.)

The investigation is still continuing but plan on it being stonewalled past Nov., as in the case of the leak of Joseph Wilson's wife's name.