Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
Justin Emsoff

Donate

Give or Take a Few Hundred Billion

Jacob Sullum | 2.9.2005 9:21 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The White House now puts the cost of the new Medicare drug benefit that President Bush championed at $720 billion over 10 years. But the administration says it's not fair to compare that figure to the $400 billion price tag it used to sell the program to Congress (which was raised to $534 billion two months after the vote). As The New York Times explains, "The original estimate was for the years 2004 to 2013. The new estimate covers the period from 2006, when the drug benefit becomes available, to 2015." But part of the fraud lay precisely in selecting a range of years that would make the progam look a lot cheaper than it really is. Why else include two years before the program would be up and running?

Bush's opponents will be quick to point out that he's trying something similar with his estimate of the transition costs for adding personal accounts to Social Security, keeping the 10-year estimate low by including years when the accounts are not yet available. Unlike the Medicare drug benefit, this spending will not add to the government's debt over the long term, since it will be balanced by lower spending on benefits when peopled with personal accounts retire. But that fact does not excuse the administration's continued use of tricky numbers, a technique that has earned the public's distrust and will make the task of selling Social Security reform harder rather than easier.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Phineas J. Whoopee, You're the Greatest! (But Can You Make Me Straight?)

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books).

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (17)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Lewis, White House Bookie   21 years ago

    Ok, I have 2 to 1 odds that the actual price tag for the medicare bill will clear $1 Trillion by the end of Bush's second term. Meet me in the Rose Garden at noon to place yer bets.

  2. PresidentMerkinMuffley   21 years ago

    Now you don't really expect us to use numbers based on years we haven't even gotten to yet, do you?

    We used 2004 because that was right after the year we were in - which is later than I thought we should have started. I mean first off, you SHOULD start with the year your actually in when you make you case.

    Don't you understand? I mean who knows what's actually going to happen in 2005 or 2006...the rapture...I mean the deficit could go down all of a sudden or the dollar could just start strengthening all by itself.

    If we had quoted numbers starting a whole 2 years after the years we were in, we could have REALLY been off. I mean WAY off. That is more off than we already are....which isn't really off.

    That's just a liberal media interperatation of otherwise meaningless numbers...I mean after all...they're JUST NUMBERS. They could've just as easily been letters.

    'sides...the numbers aren't up 'cause of anything WE did. It's all the liberals fault...and the terrorists....and the French...don't forget the French, by God...

  3. a   21 years ago

    "The original estimate was for the years 2004 to 2013. The new estimate covers the period from 2006"

    I don't get it. Why the 2006-2015 estimate almost twice as much as the 2004-2013 estimate, if both are for the same number of years? I understand a 5% difference, but why a ~90%?

  4. MayDay72   21 years ago

    But...But...Whatta 'bout all of the OLD PEOPLE who'll be livin' in the TARPAPER SHACKS!?!?

    I'm sorry. I assumed that someone would say it eventually. So I just wanted to be first.

  5. David Nieporent   21 years ago

    Isn't the far larger problem the likelihood that, based on precedent, we can assume that any number, no matter how honestly generated, is going to severely underestimate the costs involved?

  6. joe   21 years ago

    a, because the program doesn't come into effect until 2006. By starting at 2004, they were able to add in zeros for two of the years. By starting the calcuation when the program actually existed, they have to include 10 years when funds will actually be spent.

    And by replacing 2004 and 2005 with 2014 and 2015, they are replacing those zeros with figures that reflect both the higher costs from the rocketing price of drugs, and the higher numbers of people that will be enrolled in the program, at that time.

  7. R C Dean   21 years ago

    So, joe, do you think the drug benefit costs too much and ought to be scaled back or repealed?

  8. Mr. Nice Guy   21 years ago

    The prescription drug benefit is such a win-win situation for the politicians. They get to please the geezers (BIG voters) AND the pharmaceutical companies (BIG money). Everyone wins!!

  9. TJIT   21 years ago

    But, I thought Bush was a heartless scrooge who is savagely cutting spending to the bone. Or at least that is the impression I got from a lot of the media coverage of his budget.

  10. geezer bob   21 years ago

    You whippersnappers are selfish and ungrateful.

    Why, if I have to pay for my own drugs I'll have to make some serious sacrifices, like give up the trip to Europe or something.

  11. c   21 years ago

    I think it's a miracle of intellectual honesty that the administration didn't simply quote the cost of its plan as $0, citing the years 1981 - 1991.

  12. Evan Williams   21 years ago

    Hmmmm. Let's take an example here. A burglar calls up your house and informs you that he's going to steal 25% of all your belongings. But when he comes to take your stuff, he steals 75% of your belongings.

    Now, should you get upset that he wasn't accurate/honest when he informed you about said theft? Or should you be upset that he stole from you in the first place?

    Lies and bullshitting are status quo in DC. The issue here, whether it's $400 billion or $1 trillion, is that we're getting robbed. Yet, instead, everyone gathers round and moans that the burglar wasn't honest with you in the first place. Hmph. Okay...

  13. thoreau   21 years ago

    I hope this doesn't undermine anybody's trust in the Bush administration 😉

  14. Super Prole   21 years ago

    When did the fedral government move to this "5 year plan" style of accounting? I've seen it used to make programs seem bigger (and thus better) or bigger (and thus more expensive).

    75 billion a year? That's about 1500 per geezer (assuming there's 50 million of them). How many drugs are these people taking?

    SP

  15. madpad   21 years ago

    It doesn't undermine mine. I never had any in the first place.

  16. James Anderson Merritt   21 years ago

    What is all this about "transition costs" and borrowing? If the powers that be are serious about 1) wanting to keep the safety net intact for seniors who are now or soon to be dependent on social security; 2) wanting to trim or cut the deficit and bring the government back to fiscal responsibility; and 3) wanting to harm post-boomers as little as possible in the transition, the answer is clear: sell off government assets (mostly land) to shore up the system.

    I was flabbergasted to read recently that, as late as 1992, almost 47% of California land belonged to the Federal government! Hey Uncle Sam! Give me a few acres of decent land in the state of my birth and we'll call it even on this whole Social Security thing! Or feel free to put 10% of California on the market! You'd lower median housing costs (over $700K in my neck-o-th-woods -- that's why I'm a RENTER!) as well as make Social Security flush for many years to come, while taking care of the seniors who depend upon it and moving post-boomers into privatized retirement investments.

    The problem is that the government isn't really serious about any of the above, especially about conducting their finances in an honest or sound way. Think about that, the next time you go to vote, my friends.

  17. antichris   21 years ago

    LET'S SEE. I BET THAT JUST ONE IRS AUDIT OF ONE OR TWO MAJOR DRUG COS. WOULD PAY FOR THE WHOLE PROGRAM. NAAAAAAAAH.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Webathon 2025: Dec. 2 - Dec. 9 Thanks to 759 donors, we've reached $532,101 of our $400,000 $600,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

Donate Now

Latest

Virginia's New Blue Trifecta Puts Right-To-Work on the Line

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 12.6.2025 7:00 AM

Ayn Rand Denounced the FCC's 'Public Interest' Censorship More Than 60 Years Ago

Robby Soave | From the January 2026 issue

Review: Progressive Myths Rebuts the Left's Histrionic Takes

Jack Nicastro | From the January 2025 issue

French Study on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Finds a Drop in Severe COVID—and No Increase in Deaths

Ronald Bailey | 12.5.2025 4:25 PM

Warner Bros. Accepts Netflix's $83 Billion Bid, but Antitrust Threats Still Loom

Jack Nicastro | 12.5.2025 3:36 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks