The Annual Federal Deficit To Reach $1 Trillion This Year

(Cartoon image on government spending is from 02varvara.wordpress.com.)

We knew the Republican tax reform (giveaway to the rich) was going to balloon the deficit and the national debt, but it's happening much faster than predicted. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had originally predicted that the annual budget deficits would reach $1 trillion a year starting in 2020. They now admit they were wrong, and it will happen this year.

Through the first 11 months of this fiscal year (10/17 through 8/18), the budget deficit was $895 billion. That's $222 billion more than through the first 11 months of last year. And the huge increase can't be blamed on spending. Spending only rose by 7%, while the deficit rose by 33%. The biggest reason, by far, is the cut in taxes for the rich and the corporations. When September (the 12th month of this fiscal year) is figured in, the CBO expects the deficit for this year to reach $1 trillion dollars -- and continue to be above a trillion dollars for every year after that.

The Republicans, if they remain in power, will now try to gut all the programs that help ordinary Americans to pay for their giveaway to the rich -- and we can expect that to include Social Security and Medicare (along with food stamps, housing assistance, education, etc.).

This makes it very important to vote them out of power this November. It's only the Democrats who can protect social program spending and fix the GOP's tax reform mess.

The CBO Rates The GOP Tax Plan (And It's Not Good)

The congressional Republicans are still trying to sell their tax plan to the public as benefitting mainly the middle class. That is an outrageous lie! And now we have the numbers to prove that.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has rated the GOP tax plan. Some of the results are shown in the chart above. A positive number means that income group will pay more in taxes or receive less in government spending. A negative number means that groups will pay less in taxes or receive more in government spending.

Note that those making $30,000 or less will get no tax cut and those making less than $75,000 will be paying more in taxes by 2027 than they pay now (because any small cut they get now will disappear because they are only temporary cuts). Note though that those making more than $75,000 will see their larger cuts remain -- because tax cuts for upper incomes and for corporations are permanent (not temporary like for most Americans.

The rich and the corporations get the biggest tax cuts, and their cuts are permanent. The working and middle classes get small cuts that are only temporary. Does that sound like a "Middle class tax cut" to you? The Republicans are selling out the working and middle classes so they can give massive cuts to their true constituency -- the rich and the corporations.

And that's not all. The Republicans slipped a provision into the tax plan that would eliminate the individual mandate for the Affordable Care Act. Some Americans might think that's good, but it isn't. According to the CBO, this will cause 4 million people to lose their health insurance by 2019, and 13 million by 2027. And those who don't lose their insurance will see their cost of insurance premiums rise by 10% each year through 2027.

This is a bad bill that hurts the working and middle classes while rewarding the rich and corporations (the two groups that didn't need government help). It should be defeated.

Public Thinks Trumpcare Doesn't Do What's Needed

Senate Majority Leader McConnell has promised that the Senate will vote next week on whether to bring a health plan to the Senate floor for debate. But he didn't specify what that bill would be -- the latest version of Trumpcare, or the repeal now and replace later plan.

It doesn't much matter though, because neither one would accomplish what the American public would like to see. About 62% of the public now thinks it is the responsibility of the federal government to assure that all Americans have coverage for medical care (about 10 points more that said that back in March). But both Republican plans go in the opposite direction.

The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has examined both the latest version of Trumpcare and the repeal and replace later idea. The CBO says the latest version of Trumpcare would take health insurance away from 15 million people in 2018, and at least 22 million by 2026. The repeal without replacing plan would take insurance away from 17 million in 2018, and at least 32 million by 2026.

It's easy to see why only 22% support the latest Trumpcare plan, and only 13% support repeal and replace later. The American people want more people covered with insurance -- not less. But the Republicans have no plan to cover more people.

So what should the Republicans do now? A huge majority say they should negotiate with the Democrats to fix Obamacare (see bottom chart).

Most of these numbers are from a recent AP-NORC Poll -- done between July 13th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,019 adults, with a margin of error of 4.1 points.

The bottom chart also uses numbers from a recent Fox News Poll -- done between July 16th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,020 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Revised Estimate Shows Senate Bill Worse Than Thought

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the Senate bill (BCRA) would cost about 22 million Americans their health insurance. Some would come from individuals no longer buying plans (many because they could no longer afford them), and some would come from employers no longer providing insurance for employees -- but most would come from the 26% in cuts to Medicaid in the 10 year projection.

Well, it turns out the Senate bill is even worse than the CBO first projected. That's because the cuts to Medicaid don't stop at 2026. They grow even larger in later years -- growing to 35% by 2036. Those cuts past 2026, combined with the expected growth in medical care costs, would mean that millions more people would be dumped from Medicaid roles -- raising the number of people losing health coverage far beyond the 22 million projected.

The BCRA (i.e., Trumpcare) is a very mean-spirited bill. It would deny health coverage to a huge hunk of the American population. The Republicans have once again shown they simply don't care for their fellow Americans -- unless they are rich.

CBO Says Senate Bill Will Take Insurance From 22 Million

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its analysis of the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) -- the Senate Republican bill to cut taxes for the rich disguised as a health care bill. And it's just as bad as we expected.

The bill would cause about 22 million people to lose their health insurance by 2026 -- raising the number of uninsured to 48 million Americans by that year. While that's a million fewer than the House bill (AHCA), the Senate cuts to Medicaid would continue after 2026 -- and that means the number of uninsured Americans would continue to rise after 2026.

While some of the rise in the uninsured would come from those currently purchasing their own policies or from employers no longer being required to purchase insurance for employees, most of those losing insurance would be people currently getting insurance help through Medicaid. The Medicaid program would be devastated.

The CBO also projected that insurance premiums would rise by 20% in 2018 and another 10% in 2019. After that, the average premium cost would go down. But that is not a cause for celebration. Current policies (under Obamacare) are required to pay about 70% of medical costs. But in 2020, they expect policies to cover only about 58% of costs -- meaning those policies will have fewer benefits and higher deductibles.

This means those buying individual plans might pay less for premiums, but if they get sick, they'll pay a lot more out of their own pockets for medical care. And it probably won't just be those who buy individual policies. We can expect a lot of employers to start buying plans for their employees that have fewer benefits and much higher deductibles.

The BCRA will do what it was intended to do -- give the richest Americans a huge tax cut. But to do that, the Senate Republicans will throw the poor, the working class, and even many in the middle class under the bus. It's a truly bad plan, and we can only hope it's defeated.

Trumpcare Will Cost 23 Million People Their Health Insurance

We now see why the House Republicans quickly passed Trumpcare (their health care plan to replace Obamacare) before it could be scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO released their evaluation of Trumpcare yesterday -- and it was about as bad as we expected.

The plan would save the government about $119 billion through the year 2026. But it does so at the expense of millions of Americans. Under Obamacare, the number of uninsured Americans would be 28 million in 2026. Trumpcare raises that number to 51 million (adding an additional 23 million uninsured people). That's a huge step backward,

Republicans brag that the CBO says premium prices will come down. It is true they will drop slightly -- if you are young, healthy, and willing to buy an insurance plan without all the coverage and benefits required of policies under Obamacare. If you are older, have a pre-existing condition, or want to keep your policy with current coverage and benefits, the premiums will go up.

Trumpcare is just a very bad health plan. It does give tax cuts to the richest Americans, but it takes health insurance away from millions of people to accomplish that. It shows once again that the Republicans simply don't care about the health and welfare of any Americans but the rich.

CBO Estimates 26 Million Will Lose Health Insurance

It looks like the Republican's replacement plan for Obamacare is even worse than expected. The Brooking Institute had estimated that a minimum of 15 million people would lose their heal insurance if the GOP plan replaces Obamacare. Now the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revealed their assessment of the Republican plan -- and they say up to 26 million will lose their health insurance (14 million in just the first year, and 26 million by 2026).

And the Republican bill would punish older working class Americans. While a young person is predicted to save a modest $250 a year in insurance premiums, those near retirement age would be hit much harder. A 64 year-old making $26,500 a year currently pays $1700 a year for health insurance. Under the GOP plan, that 64 year-old would have to pay $14,600 a year -- a whopping increase of $12,900 (about a 759% increase)!

Older working class Americans were the largest supporters of Trump and the Republicans in the last election -- so it seems strange that they would be the group hit the hardest by the GOP plan. But that's exactly what would happen. Do the Republicans really want to throw away the votes of their biggest supporters?

The plan is a travesty, and it would mean a death sentence for many of those who can no longer afford insurance. One study by Harvard doctors showed it could cause as many as 43,000 extra deaths each year (deaths that would have been prevented under Obamacare).

A recent Monmouth University Poll (done between March 2nd and 5th of a random national sample of 801 adults with a margin of error of 3.5 points) shows that 20% of people already have to choose between paying bills or getting medical care -- and 31% forgo getting needed medical treatment because they can't afford it. Those figures would rise substantially under the Republican plan.

This is a very bad plan. It takes health insurance away from millions of Americans while giving huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations.

CBO - Repeal Would Double Insurance Premiums By 2026

(Cartoon image is by Matt Boss at thenib.com.)

The Republicans are still trying to claim that the repeal of Obamacare will be good for Americans, and will reduce the cost of health insurance. But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) disagrees. Here is part of the summary of their latest estimates on what will happen if Obamacare is defunded (or repealed):

In brief, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:

• The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.
• Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.

The ways in which individuals, employers, states, insurers, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by H.R. 3762 are all difficult to predict, so the estimates in this report are uncertain. But CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes. . . .

Estimated Changes Before the Elimination of the Medicaid Expansion and Subsidies

Following enactment but before the Medicaid expansion and subsidies for insurance purchased through the marketplaces were eliminated, the effects of H.R. 3762 on insurance coverage and premiums would stem primarily from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate.

Effects on Insurance Coverage. CBO and JCT expect that the number of people without health insurance coverage would increase upon enactment of H.R. 3762 but that the increase would be limited initially, because insurers would have already set their premiums for the current year, and many people would have already made their enrollment decisions for the year. Subsequently, in the first full plan year following enactment, by CBO and JCT’s estimates, about 18 million people would become uninsured. That increase in the uninsured population would consist of about 10 million fewer people with coverage obtained in the nongroup market, roughly 5 million fewer people with coverage under Medicaid, and about 3 million fewer people with employment-based coverage.

Most of those reductions in coverage would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. However, CBO and JCT also expect that insurers in some areas would leave the nongroup market in the first new plan year following enactment. They would be leaving in anticipation of further reductions in enrollment and higher average health care costs among enrollees who remained after the subsidies for insurance purchased through the marketplaces were eliminated. As a consequence, roughly 10 percent of the population would be living in an area that had no insurer participating in the nongroup market.

Effects on Premiums. According to CBO and JCT’s analysis, premiums in the nongroup market would be roughly 20 percent to 25 percent higher than under current law once insurers incorporated the effects of H.R. 3762’s changes into their premium pricing in the first new plan year after enactment. The majority of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Doing so would both reduce the number of people purchasing health insurance and change the mix of people with insurance—tending to cause smaller reductions in coverage among older and less healthy people with high health care costs and larger reductions among younger and healthier people with low health care costs. Thus, average health care costs among the people retaining coverage would be higher, and insurers would have to raise premiums in the nongroup market to cover those higher costs. Lower participation by insurers in the nongroup market would place further upward pressure on premiums because the market would be less competitive.

Estimated Changes After the Elimination of the Medicaid Expansion and Subsidies

The bill’s effects on insurance coverage and premiums would be greater once the repeal of the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for insurance purchased through the marketplaces took effect, roughly two years after enactment.

Effects on Insurance Coverage. By CBO and JCT’s estimates, enacting H.R. 3762 would increase the number of people without health insurance coverage by about 27 million in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies and by 32 million in 2026, relative to the number of uninsured people expected under current law. (The number of people without health insurance would be smaller if, in addition to the changes in H.R. 3762, the insurance market reforms mentioned above were also repealed. In that case, the increase in the number of uninsured people would be about 21 million in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies; that figure would rise to about 23 million in 2026.)

The estimated increase of 32 million people without coverage in 2026 is the net result of roughly 23 million fewer with coverage in the nongroup market and 19 million fewer with coverage under Medicaid, partially offset by an increase of about 11 million people covered by employment-based insurance. By CBO and JCT’s estimates, 59 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2026 (compared with 28 million under current law), representing 21 percent of people under age 65. By 2026, fewer than 2 million people would be enrolled in the nongroup market, CBO and JCT estimate.

According to the agencies’ analysis, eliminating the mandate penalties and the subsidies while retaining the market reforms would destabilize the nongroup market, and the effect would worsen over time. The ACA’s changes to the rules governing the nongroup health insurance market work in conjunction with the mandates and the subsidies to increase participation in the market and encourage enrollment among people of different ages and health statuses. But eliminating the penalty for not having health insurance would reduce enrollment and raise premiums in the nongroup market. Eliminating subsidies for insurance purchased through the marketplaces would have the same effects because it would result in a large price increase for many people. Not only would enrollment decline, but the people who would be most likely to remain enrolled would tend to be less healthy (and therefore more willing to pay higher premiums). Thus, average health care costs among the people retaining coverage would be higher, and insurers would have to raise premiums in the nongroup market to cover those higher costs. CBO and JCT expect that enrollment would continue to drop and premiums would continue to increase in each subsequent year.

Leaving the ACA’s market reforms in place would limit insurers’ ability to use strategies that were common before the ACA was enacted. For example, insurers would not be able to vary premiums to reflect an individual’s health care costs or offer health insurance plans that exclude coverage of preexisting conditions, plans that do not cover certain types of benefits (such as maternity care), or plans with very high deductibles or very low actuarial value (plans paying a very low share of costs for covered services).

Effects on Participation by Insurers. In CBO and JCT’s estimation, the factors exerting upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment in the nongroup market would lead to substantially reduced participation by insurers and enrollees in many areas. Prior experience in states that implemented similar nongroup market reforms without a mandate penalty or subsidies has demonstrated the potential for market destabilization. Several states that enacted such market reforms later repealed or substantially modified those reforms in response to increased premiums and insurers’ departure from the market.

After weighing the evidence from prior state-level reforms and input from experts and market participants, CBO and JCT estimate that about half of the nation’s population lives in areas that would have no insurer participating in the nongroup market in the first year after the repeal of the marketplace subsidies took effect, and that share would continue to increase, extending to about three-quarters of the population by 2026. That contraction of the market would most directly affect people without access to employment-based coverage or public health insurance.

Effects on Premiums. In total, as a result of reduced enrollment, higher average health care costs among remaining enrollees, and lower participation by insurers, CBO and JCT project that premiums in the nongroup market would be about 50 percent higher in the first year after the marketplace subsidies were eliminated—relative to projections under current law—and would about double by 2026.

GOP Surprised By Nonpartisan CBO Report

(This caricature of a surprised GOP elephant is by DonkeyHotey.)

A few weeks ago, the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation said passing immigration reform would cost the government more money and increase the deficit. Teabagger congressional Republicans seized on this as though it was factual, and have been using it to oppose immigration reform. So you can imagine their surprise when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their own study of the financial effects of immigration reform (specifically the current Senate version of immigration reform).

The CBO report exposed the Heritage Foundation's claim as just right-wing wishful thinking, with no basis in real world facts. The CBO study says the immigration reform being considered in the Senate would cost the government about $22 billion over the next 10 years (2014 through 2023), but would bring in $197 billion in additional revenues -- meaning it would reduce the budget deficit by about $175 billion. Then in the 10 years after that (2024 to 2033), it would reduce the budget deficit by another $700 billion. That's nearly a trillion dollars in budget reductions in the next 20 years just from passing immigration reform (with a path to citizenship).

Of course, the Republicans opposed to that reform are now busy trying to denigrate the CBO report. They claim the CBO has a history of being wrong (in spite of the fact that they love to tout the CBO when it agrees with them). But the truth is that the CBO is a nonpartisan organization that is not controlled by either party -- and while that report is just an educated guess by experts as to the effect of the bill, it is the best nonpartisan appraisal available (and probably much closer to the truth than any partisan appraisal by either side).

And the really crazy part of this is that it is the proposed Republican amendments to the bill that would increase the cost of immigration reform. One proposal would triple the number of border patrol officers, and others would send tons of high tech equipment to the border -- all of which would increase the cost of immigration reform and significantly cut the deficit savings. And it would do this in spite of the fact that we currently have negative immigration of undocumented workers (more are leaving than are entering), and Homeland Security already gives our border security its highest rating.

But then the Republicans have never been really interested in cutting the budget. Remember, they took a budget surplus left to them by President Clinton and turned it into a gigantic budget deficit. While they do propose cutting programs that help children, the poor, and the elderly, it is only so they can turn around and spend more for corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the rich, and the waging of unnecessary wars. They talk about budget-cutting to fool people into voting for them, but they are actually much bigger spenders than Democrats.

Once again, the Republican's right-wing lies have been exposed. When is the public going to figure out the nefarious and big-spending policies of the GOP?

"Drill, Baby, Drill" Won't Lower Gas Prices

Republicans love to tell simple lies, because those are the most likely to be believed. One of those simple lies they have repeatedly told is that the answer to high gas prices is just to drill for more oil in the United States (and just off-shore). That sounds like it would work. After all, wouldn't more oil production drive down the price of oil (and therefore gasoline)?

Actually no. If there was a glut of oil on the world market, more than could possibly be sold, the price might go down. But that is not the current situation (nor will it be at anytime in the future). Every bit of oil produced can easily be sold, because the demand for it is high and increases with each passing day. If one country doesn't want to buy it, there are plenty more that will (and at whatever price is asked for it).

The scarcity of oil (and the prospect of it grower much scarcer as we approach the point of "peak oil") makes it a commodity that speculators love. They know they can make money no matter how much they have to pay for the oil, because they know they can always sell that oil no matter how high they jack up the price. And it is this action by speculators on Wall Street that drives up the price of oil (and therefore gasoline) -- not the lack of drilling or production (both of which are higher under President Obama than they were during the Bush administration).

Just look at the chart above. It clearly shows that the amount of oil a country produces (or doesn't produce) has little to do with the price of gasoline in that country. The chart shows that the ups and downs of gas prices are mirrored in the United States, Japan, and Canada -- even though the United States imports 63% of its oil (less than under Bush II), Japan imports 100% of its oil, and Canada produces so much more oil than it can use that it actually exports 77% of its oil.

Obviously, the amount of oil production in each country has nothing to do with the price of gas in that country. A far better way to control the price of gasoline is through greater efficiency and less dependence on oil (foreign or domestic). Here is how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts it:

Policies that promoted greater production of oil in the United States would probably not protect U.S. consumers from sudden worldwide increases in oil prices stemming from supply disruptions elsewhere in the world, even if increased production lowered the world price of oil on an ongoing basis. In fact, such lower prices would encourage greater use of oil, thus making consumers more vulnerable to increases in oil prices. Even if the United States increased production and became a net exporter of oil, U.S. consumers would still be exposed to gasoline prices that rose and fell in response to disruptions around the world.


In contrast, policies that reduced the use of oil and its products would create an incentive for consumers to use less oil or make decisions that reduced their exposure to higher oil prices in the future, such as purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles or living closer to work. Such policies would impose costs on vehicle users (in the case of fuel taxes or fuel-efficiency requirements) or taxpayers (in the case of subsidies for alternative fuels or for new vehicle technologies). But the resulting decisions would make consumers less vulnerable to increases in oil prices.

New CBO Figures Verify Income Inequality

A couple of days ago the Congressional Budget Office released figures that showed that the gulf between the richest 1% of Americans and the rest of America has grown much larger since 1979 (about the time that "trickle-down" economics was instituted). It shows that the after-tax income of the richest 1% has increased by 275%, while the bottom 80% had less than 50% growth (and the bottom 20% grew only 18%).

The CBO said, " As a result of that uneven income growth, the distribution of after-tax household income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979."

When you check the rate of inflation (using the LaborDepartment's figures based on the Consumer Price Index) you find that what could be bought for $10.00 in 1979 now costs about $27.54 in 2011. That means while the richest Americans have more buying power than ever, most other Americans have less buying power than they did in 1979 -- the rich have moved forward substantially while everyone else has gone backwards.

CBO Paints Black Picture If Republican Policies Are Continued

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the nonpartisan organization that both parties use to see the effect of what their bills and economic policies would do to the American economy. While politicians might throw out unsubstantiated numbers glorifying their own bills, the CBO is tasked to look beneath and behind the rhetoric to determine the actual effects of those bills.

Lately, the Republicans have been ignoring many of the CBO projections, and after hearing the latest CBO projections, it is easy to see why. The Republican "trickle down" giveaways to the rich is responsible for much of our ballooning national debt and the continuing national deficit -- a deficit and debt that might be understandable if it was creating jobs, but it is not.

For 2011, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf (pictured) says that the deficit will be about $1.5 trillion (nearly one-third of which will be due to the massive Republican tax breaks for the richest 2% of Americans -- projected to be over $400 billion a year). So while complaining about the deficit, the Republicans actually increased it by nearly 50%. They promised in the last campaign to cut $100 billion, but now are only talking about cutting a little over $50 billion for 2011 (a drop in the bucket compared to the huge increase they created).

In spite of this, the CBO says that if current laws and policies are followed the deficit will fall in the next few years. While the deficit for 2011 will be about 9.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), they expect the deficit to fall to $1.1 trillion in 2012 (7.0% of GDP), about $704 billion in 2013 (about 4.3% of GDP) and $533 billion in 2014 (about 3.1% of GDP). They then expect the deficit for 2015 through 2021 to range between 2.9% and 3.4% of GDP.

However, these figures will be true only if current law is allowed to continue. If, for example, the cuts in Medicare Advantage mandated in the health care law were not to take place (like the Republicans want), and the tax cuts currently in place were not allowed to expire at the end of 2012 as scheduled (and the Republicans are sure to want to extend them), then the baseline projection for 2015 through 2021 would at least double, and the total debt held by the public would reach 97% of GDP (the most since 1945).

From these numbers it's easy to see that a continuation of Republican policies of repealing health care and continuing to cut taxes for the rich would be a disaster for the national deficit, and even worse for the national debt. Republicans like to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility, but a review of their recent actions and a look back at Republican administrations shows something different. The truth is that the Republican "trickle down" policies have consistently added to both the deficit and the debt -- not decrease them.

The CBO does warn that if current law was continued, although deficits would come down in the next few years, the national debt would continue to grow. Either further cuts in government spending would be needed (including no more Republican giveaways to the rich) or an increase in taxes would be needed, or both. There is no way to bring down the national debt without doing this. The obvious solution would be to cut the military some (the most bloated area of the American budget) and raise taxes on the richest Americans (beyond letting the current cuts expire). But Republican policy would not allow either of these things to happen.

The CBO also paints a rather dark picture for employment. They say that if the economy produces 2.5 million jobs each year between now and 2016, the unemployment rate will finally fall below 6% in 2016. Even this dismal projection seems to me to be overly optimistic. Remember, only 1.1 million jobs were created in 2010 -- a figure that barely kept up with the number of new people entering the work force.

Unless the increasing amount of job outsourcing is stopped (something the Republicans oppose and recently blocked in Congress), it is unlikely that the 2.5 million jobs a year figure can be reached. While they may be created (since the corporations and the rich are doing very well), the sad fact is that far too many of them will be shipped abroad (where good-paying jobs can be turned into poverty-wage jobs).

After viewing this latest CBO projection, it becomes even clearer that the Republican policies of giveaways to the rich and outsourcing of jobs are the biggest impediments to bringing this country out of the recession. Ordinary Americans are still hurting and still feeling the full effects of the recession, but the Republicans are only interested in helping the rich -- the only people doing well right now.