The National Taxpayer Union did their own analysis and came up with a vastly different number - $2.769 Trillion over the 10 year period. They used his website, speeches, debate comments and similar sources to calculate their findings.

It's quite an eye-opener considering his plan for health-care at $89.9 Billion is more than he voted/not voted for to help Iraq.

Personally I like this plan to freeze spending but I'll settle for Bush's latest plan over Kerry's everytime.

Noted with amusement that Mr. Hobbs isn't citing FactCheck.Org any longer.

Kerry not content with 350 tax hike votes hot footed it to DC on March 10th to make it 351.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3320

Kerry Votes for New Tax Hike
by David Freddoso
Posted Mar 19, 2004

John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, took time out from his busy campaign schedule on March 10 to return to Washington, D.C., and vote for a new tax hike.

Senate Democrats pushed 14 different votes on tax hike proposals two weeks ago as the Senate considered its five-year, $2.36-trillion budget plan (S. Con. Res. 95) for fiscal 2005 and beyond.

Kerry was present on March 10 for only one of these 14 tax-hiking amendments--and he voted for it.

After skipping two tax-hiking votes in the afternoon, Kerry showed up for five votes in the evening starting at 5:55 p.m., Senate records show. The last vote was a tax hike. After voting "aye" on the final roll call of Wednesday night to raise taxes by $1.8 billion, Kerry turned up absent the next day and missed a series of 11 additional tax-hike votes.

Kerry's office did not respond to queries from HUMAN EVENTS about whether he would have voted "aye" on the 13 tax-hike votes he missed.

Taken together, the Democrats' floor amendments would have increased taxes by a total of $86 billion next year, and $443 billion over five years. They also would have increased federal spending by $81 billion next year, and $319 billion through 2009, according to estimates provided by the Republican-controlled Senate Budget Committee.

Although all 14 tax-hiking amendments were defeated on the Senate floor, two other key Democratic amendments passed, one of which erects a new hurdle to making President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Under the current law, some of the tax cuts will expire at the end of this year, while others will last until 2011.

Congress' complicated budget process is best thought of as an outline for future spending. By passing this year's budget outline, Congress sets limits on itself for next year's spending, which, theoretically, will be incorporated into the appropriations bills it passes later this year.

In the Senate, the budget outline has a powerful effect on spending bills. Appropriations bills and amendments that bust the spending caps in the budget require 60-vote majorities for consideration. In the House, the limits are basically theoretical.

The budget outline, which is not a law and does not require the President's signature, is nonetheless of great importance because it creates the political framework within which bills that cut or increase taxes will be considered.

Through what is called "budget reconciliation," Congress can create a temporary tax cut or increase--or even mandate a new source of government revenue, such as the lease of drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Such changes last only for the period covered by the budget outline, but they have the key advantage of not being subject to filibuster in the Senate. Under the budget process created in 1974, debate is automatically limited, and just 51 votes are sufficient for passage.

This was the rule used to pass President Bush's three temporary tax cuts over the past three years by simple majority votes. An attempt by Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.) this year to disallow such temporary tax cuts was beaten back in a narrow 47-to-52 vote, opening the door for possible tax cuts this year. Kerry was present and voted in favor of Byrd's amendment to disallow tax cuts.

Another amendment, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), reinstated the so-called PayGo (or "Pay-as-You-Go") requirement for federal spending--effectively meaning that any permanent tax cuts proposed this year would need 60 votes to clear the Senate. Democrats have successfully filibustered all permanent tax cut bills since Bush entered office in 2001.

The tax-hiking amendment Kerry voted for, sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D.-Fla.), would have raised taxes by $1.8 billion in an unspecified manner. Although the amendment's description suggested that the money would come from "eliminating abusive tax loopholes," this is fiction. The amendment actually opens the door to any kind of tax increase. Equally fictitious was a vague suggestion in the same description that the money should go to veterans' health spending. In fact, it could have been used for any purpose. The amendment did not receive a single Republican vote, and failed 46 to 51.

After the Senate action, the House Budget Committee, led by Chairman Jim Nussle (R.-Iowa), approved a resolution restraining growth in domestic spending from 2005 to 2009, but allowing Bush's tax cuts to be made permanent. A Democratic attempt to prevent permanency of the tax cuts was defeated on a 24-to-18 party-line committee vote.

Well, Kerry seems to love tell us all the ways he's going to improve things. Yet he never says anything about the bottom line - what will it cost and who pays the bill for it... General politician babbling during an election cycle but most especially for Democrats.

Kerry's been screaming about the deficit, yet everytime he opens his mouth, he's talking about spending more and more and more money.

The health care issue is always amazingly funny to me. So many people tell me we need the government to take over health care because they have to pay too much for it right now. I look at them and say - well, who do you think will be paying for it if the feds take over? Sheesh - I want to scream at them - you don't get something for nothing! If you want to lower health care costs, you MUST stop the outrageous lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, and drug companies - end of problem.

I wonder why no one seems to understand such an obvious fault in the health care system on the Dem. side --- oh yeah, they do, but the lawyers have paid off enough to keep anything from happening, what was I thinking. (I mention the Dems in particular since they seem to "care" so much more for the little people of the world... yeah right)

The Dems claim they will be able to radically increase the number of jobs. But they champion higher taxes and more regulations, which destroy jobs.

How can they be trusted to govern in these trying times.

Regarding the outrageous lawsuits, can you suggest another way to limit them other than capping the amounts of recovery? It seems to me that with lower dollar amounts many people could be encourgaged to go ahead because juries might more readily award smaller amounts.

I recently served on a jury in a civil case. The amount in question was over six million dollars. The suit would probably have been successful if the amount had been closer to $500,000 or so.

It could possibly be responsible for a larger number of suits filed rather than a smaller number.

On the ability to govern, I believe that this administration is on a collision course with grass-roots reality. All of the levers of power are at its disposal now, and can be manipulated to its advantage.

I think there is a high probability of its reinstatement in November, but I also believe that once America has purged itself of the worst of its nature, it will have many years ahead to re-form itself as a respected international leader.

There is no data to support the following:

you MUST stop the outrageous lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, and drug companies - end of problem.

Basically, it's insurance companies paying off GOPers.

I always find it amusing that conservatives think juries can determine whether someone lives or dies in a death penalty case but believe these same folks are incapable of awarding monetary damages.

Easy. Life/Death Yes/No 0/1

Monetary damages: 1 to Infinity

Basically, it's insurance companies paying off GOPers.

Yes, we're positively rolling in the dough as a result. Can't remember when I got my last check, though.

The fact remains: malpractice insurance is not a major driver of healthcare costs.

Here are some interesting factoids:

Some states have rapidly rising malpractice premiums, especially in obstetrics, neurology and some surgical fields. But, on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance -- 3.2% of their revenue -- than on rent.

* Large jury awards play a limited role in causing premiums to rise, despite allegations that greedy trial lawyers and frivolous claims are to blame. Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates.

Settlement payouts are up, but that has less to do with pain-and-suffering claims than with higher awards for what are called economic damages -- the patient's medical bills, lost wages and other expenses.

* Insurance companies are boosting rates partly to make up for price wars in the 1990s, when competition kept premiums low, and to counter recent declines in their investment incomes. That investment profit had helped offset losses from malpractice damage awards and the artificially low premiums charged to doctors.

* In some states, medical organizations and regulators have failed to weed out bad doctors. That has caused malpractice rates to go up for all.

* How much of a doctor's revenue goes to malpractice insurance? A March 2002 government report by MedPAC, a congressional advisory commission, says doctors, on average, were expected to spend 3.2% of their revenue on malpractice insurance last year. That compares with 12.4% for staff salaries, 11.6% for office expenses and 1.9% for medical equipment. Calculations based on two surveys published by Medical Economics magazine -- widely read by physicians -- last year show that OB-GYNs paid the most for malpractice insurance, as a percentage of their revenue, 6.7%, and cardiologists paid the least, 1.5%.

Tell me Jade, do you practice lying like this, or did it come naturally to you? By the way, I love the fact that you refuse to provide a LINK to those stats that you pasted. Perhaps you don't like being shown up as a partisan hack?

Unlike empty-headed twits such as yourself, many of us have to live and work in the real world, where actions have consequenses. A hospital in Seattle just lost 60% of their neurosurgeons last year. The cause? They could no longer pay their malpractice insurance, and could therefor no longer perform surgery at that hosptial. Doctors are fleeing states due to high malpractice costs. All you have to do is look at what's happening in the medical field to understand how tort reform could help cut medical costs.

But as usual, you will avoid any semblance of reality so that you may continue to lie, slander conservatives, and live your life in blissful ignorance. Too bad you do not choose to keep your ignorance to yourself.