CQ Transcriptswire

Oct. 17, 2008

OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISERS HOLD A NEWS TELECONFERENCE ON SEN. MCCAIN’S MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PLANS

SPEAKERS:

SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA.

JOSHUA EARNEST, OBAMA CAMPAIGN STAFF

BRIAN DEESE, OBAMA CAMPAIGN ECONOMIC ADVISER

EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. And thanks for joining the call today. This is Josh Earnest in the Obama headquarters in Chicago.

We’re pleased to be joined on the call today by Senator Nelson from Florida, who will be talking about a recent report in the Wall Street Journal in which the McCain campaign acknowledges that they would make significant cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs in order to pay for Senator McCain’s radical restructuring of the health care system in this country.

We are -- we announced today that we will begin running television ads on this topic in battleground states all across the country.

But to talk about this in a little more detail and to talk about the impact it would have on people across Florida, I’ll turn it over to Senator Nelson.

NELSON: Hey, good afternoon.

Well, as we speak, John McCain has left Miami and he’s en route to my home town of Melbourne. And the fact that he’s going to Brevard County is an indication that he is quite concerned that Barack has really sliced in to that traditionally Republican area, because Barack has a very detailed proposal on America’s space program, and John McCain has had a proposal, as he said two nights ago in the debate, of a freeze at last year’s levels across the board.

And, of course, if they do that with NASA, it will absolutely continue to savage NASA, as George Bush’s administration has done, that’s leading us at the space center, when they shut down the space shuttle, to 4,000 to 5,000 jobs laying off because they have not developed the new rocket to replace the space shuttle, and we’re going to be beholden to the Russians to get to the very space station that we built and paid for, and -- and -- and without an American vehicle for five to six years.

Barack has addressed this. And I submit to you that that’s exactly why McCain is going to Brevard County, which went heavily for George Bush over John Kerry , and he’s going in there because he knows that -- that Barack has -- has absolutely pierced those Republican engineers who are so concerned about America’s space program.

Now, I want -- I want to talk to you about this Wall Street Journal from October the 6th. And basically, McCain’s health plan would give families a $5,000 tax credit to pay for health care. And how he said he was going to pay for that was he was going to tax the employer health benefits.

And, of course, that’s the first time that employer health benefits would be taxed. But now it turns out that it’s not going to cover the full cost of the tax credits.

So now we learned, lo and behold, that he’s going to make up the difference by cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, McCain’s plan is going to have a 22 percent cut in Medicare and Medicaid next year.

And that breaks out -- $1.3 million over 10 years, that’s $882 billion cut over 10 years from Medicare alone.

Now, I can tell you, from a state like Florida, where we have a higher percentage of the population that are senior citizens and, therefore, recipients of Medicare, second only in Florida to California, simply because of their size and ours.

And I can tell you, also, we’ve got 1.6 million kids in this state that are benefiting from Medicaid. With those kind of populations, this McCain plan isn’t going to go over very well in the state of Florida.

And what it is, is that John is just -- he keeps -- he keeps going from one pillar to post trying to figure out how he’s going to revamp the health care. And proposing massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, that’s just not going to cut it.

I mean, even in this economic crisis, John has proposed privatizing Social Security. Well, my goodness gracious, which, by the way, George Bush did. Just think if we had privatized what George Bush wanted when he first ran for president and then when he re-ran in for re-election to president, if we would have privatized it, what do you think would have happened to people’s Social Security when these markets have tumbled as they have?

So it’s not time to privatize Social Security. And it’s sure not time to cut Medicare and Medicaid, which John has proposed. And you’ve got a clear difference there between him and Barack on some very, very important issues to a lot of folks in this country.

OK, let me just open it up to you all.

NELSON: Well, either I was so complete, or else we don’t have any interest in this subject, or there’s nobody on the call.

QUESTION: And I just wondered if -- if you know what Senator Obama’s plans are for Medicare and Medicaid and whether they would entail any -- any cuts or changes? And there seems to be quite a bit of unnecessary and redundant care being provided, especially in the fee-for-service Medicare program.

NELSON: The general answer is very few cuts, if any at all. And the specific answer is, I’ve got one of his gurus on the call with me. So let me have him tell you specifically.

DEESE: Hi, this is Brian Deese. I work for the campaign.

Senator Obama does believe that we need to improve and strengthen the Medicare program, but the McCain approach, as -- as Barack Obama mentioned in the debate, with respect to his spending freeze, the similar approach here is to taking a hatchet to the program, rather than being smart about the way that we can strengthen Medicare, while improving care for our seniors.

Let me just give you one example. Senator Obama has called for eliminating over-payments to private HMOs in the Medicare Advantage program. That is these over-payments, which don’t go to seniors -- they go directly to HMOs -- have been shown by independent analysis across the board to not improve care and not improve the services that seniors need.

And so we could reduce those, and we could reduce costs, without -- without reducing care.

But to be clear, that would save about $15 billion a year. What Senator McCain has now proposed is $130 billion a year. That’s $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

So the -- the magnitude of cuts that would be required under the McCain proposal to the core services that Medicare would provide are just simply dramatic. And there’s just no way to cut $130 billion a year out of the programs without, you know, decimating them and eliminating the basic services that our seniors rely on.

So -- so, yes, Senator Obama believed that we do have to be more efficient, but we have to do it in a way that strengthens the programs for our seniors.

QUESTION: Tell me, you know, on the -- you know, you’ve got McCain back in the state today. Clearly, your call (inaudible) to the ads that are running now from the Obama campaign about, you know, it gets worse, the new ad that they’ve got up.

What do you think McCain’s biggest challenge is in making his argument to Florida voters? Do you think this is the -- this is the thing that gets him -- that helps Obama over the edge? Or is there something different that -- that you think he’s -- he needs to be doing or that would resound more?

NELSON: But go back to the original theme of the campaign, is time for change. That is what is resonating throughout the people of Florida.

I’m sitting in an office in Orlando. And the fellow who we’ve had some trouble with the air conditioning, he just came in here. And as he walked out, unsolicited, checking the thermostat here, he just turned to me and said, “It is time for change. We have got to change the direction that this country is going on,” and said he was voting for Obama.

And, of course, early voting starts next week in Florida. So I think that’s the overall thing.

You can get -- you can slice and dice it into the different segments, the elderly population that we’ve just been talking about, the services to the poor through Medicaid, or you can slice it -- what I said earlier, about all of those engineers over there that are worried about having a job at the Cape come 2010.

Whatever it is, they’re ready for change, because they don’t like the direction the country is going in.

EARNEST: OK, Senator Nelson, we really appreciate your time today. And thanks to everyone else who jumped on the call.

NELSON: Have a good day.

EARNEST: Thank you, Senator.

NELSON: Bye-bye.

END

MCCAIN CAMPAIGN ADVISERS HOLD A NEWS TELECONFERENCE ON SEN. OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE PLAN

SPEAKERS:

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SENIOR DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER

BRIAN ROGERS, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN

ROGERS: Hey, everybody. Thanks for joining us for this conference call today to discuss the -- the incredible distortions and lies that Barack Obama leveled today about John McCain and the Medicare program. With us, we have Doug Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to the campaign. He’ll make some comments outlining -- outlining these issues, and then we’ll take some questions.

With that, I’ll turn it over to Doug.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to join the call.

I’m sorry to have to join with you in such terrible circumstances, but what we’ve seen on the issue of health care reform is the basic Obama strategy, which is attack John McCain and don’t answer questions about your own plan. And the result has been the worst and most sustained distortion of policy in this entire campaign; a dubious honor that no one will be able to exceed.

Let me just go through the attacks that we’ve seen running in a flat -- in a flood of ads nationwide and repeated in Barack Obama ’s stump speeches.

Distortion number one: John McCain will tax health care benefits for the first time and have the largest middle-income -- middle-income -- middle-income tax increase in history.

Absolutely false. Both before and after John McCain ’s reform, the tax code will subsidize private health insurance, period.

Right now we have a subsidy for private health insurance that is skewed toward the richest, most affluent Americans, who have employer- sponsored insurance. After the reform, that subsidy will be equally distributed across all types of insurance, and the same amount will apply to every individual who gets private health insurance.

Why Barack Obama , who preaches fairness at every stop, would oppose this is a mystery to me.

Indeed, it’s even more mysterious because it’s an approach that was supported by his very own top economic adviser, Jason Furman. The Furman plan, which you could call the McCain plan, would, quote, “scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.”

That is, in fact, the John McCain plan. Barack Obama is opposed to that.

This is a distortion because it focuses only on one part of the plan, and it ignores entirely the tax credit -- $5,000 for families, $2,500 for individuals -- that would go along with the plan.

The second attack is that somehow it’ll be a tax increase.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: If you happen to have from your employer a health insurance policy that is, quote, “as good as a member of Congress” -- that’s the Barack Obama gold standard for health insurance -- not only will you not have a tax increase, you will have more tax dollars back for health care than you do right now: a savings ranging from $3,800 at the bottom bracket of 10 percent to $800 at the top income tax bracket of 35 percent.

This is just a complete distortion to call it a tax increase.

The second distortion is, John McCain will tax health care benefits for the first time and send the money straight to insurance companies.

The truth is, this is simply a deceptive attack. American families get to decide exactly where they’re going to put their credit dollars. They will pick the health insurance plan of their choice to meet their needs. It will give them the flexibility to tailor their insurance to the point in their life cycle. They can pick a policy that’s portable and moves with them from job to job, from job to home. They will not have to change providers if they change jobs. Many people will for the first time be able to say they have a pediatrician, because they don’t have to change every time they switch jobs.

And indeed, moving the money directly to the insurance company is simply an administrative efficiency. And if Barack Obama favors inefficient large government, well then you just look at his plans.

It’s a -- especially ironic that he would attack this, because this is his own policy under his whole tax credit, where the money simply goes from the federal government to colleges.

Distortion number three: Under John McCain ’s plan, Americans with a preexisting condition will not find coverage.

Absolutely false. John McCain has pledged to the American people a guaranteed access plan in every state that would cover those who are denied coverage because either preexisting conditions or high cost.

The guaranteed access plan would have caps premiums so it was affordable. It would take advantage and require the provider to use modern technics like disease management to reduce the cost of care. And it would impose fines on those companies that denied inappropriately, so it’d have a built a built in check on the source of denial. Distortion number four: The McCain health care plan will damage employer-provided insurance for millions of Americans.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: That’s not true. In fact, the McCain plan is meant to augment the employer-sponsored insurance system, which is the primary source of private insurance in America.

Point number one is that nothing changes for the employer under the McCain plan. Employers can deduct right now the full cost of employee compensation, including their health insurance. They will after the reform be able to deduct the full cost of all employee compensation.

Their incentives to provide insurance, which are to attract high- quality employees of various skills to be competitive in the labor market, will be absolutely unchanged.

He has asserted that they will be left with older, sicker pools, because young people will opt out. Why would they do that?

Right now, a young person, say, a 25-year-old, might be getting, oh, $4,000 worth of health insurance from their employer. That’s not the greatest insurance in the world, but if they opt out, they’ll get $2,500 worth of health insurance, the maximum they can get with that tax credit.

Why would they trade $4,000 for $2,500, if the out-of-pocket is no different?

So the assertion that somehow this is a plan that is intended to harm employer-sponsored insurance is simply incorrect.

It will allow the millions of Americans who are working and uninsured in small businesses across America to have access to insurance for the first time. Access to insurance is the gateway to better care. It’s the gateway to treatment of conditions that would later be more expensive if left untreated. It is the most important way to get cost savings to the system as a whole.

In contrast, Barack Obama ’s plan has been estimated to drive as many as 50 million individuals out of their employer-sponsored coverage. And that’s simply because he will impose a play-or-pay mandate on employers; something I want to come back to later.

And then, finally, today, Barack Obama leveled the charge that the McCain plan will reduce Medicare spending by $882 billion.

Let’s consider the source of this charge.

Number one, it’s a study by the Center for American Progress, a -- practically a fully owned subsidiary of the Barack Obama campaign.

It is authored by individuals who have donated to Democrats, including Barack Obama . It is hardly an independent, neutral source.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: The method of doing this analysis is just stunning. It says that, “Let’s assert that the McCain plan has a $1.2 trillion cost” -- something that is false -- and then divides that proportionally between Medicare and Medicaid to assert that we’ll lose $882 billion in Medicare and the remainder in Medicaid.

If you applied the same techniques to Barack Obama ’s plan, which has been estimated to cost $240 billion a year, over the next 10 years Barack Obama would be promising America’s senior $1.6 trillion in cuts to Medicare, and America’s poor $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid.

The McCain campaign is not running ads and making speeches with those kinds of assertions. It is patently false. We’re going to say Barack Obama ’s plan costs money because third-party experts have estimated that it costs money.

Now, the assertion that somehow we are undertaking cuts in Medicare doesn’t stand up on analysis either.

It is true that as we institute the following reforms -- promoting a payment reform that moves away from fragmented, fee-for- service, volume-based approaches to coordinated care with an emphasis on prevention and wellness -- you might actually be able to achieve the same quality outcomes at lower cost.

We do want to eliminate Medicare fraud and abuse, estimated to be $60 billion a year by the inspector general and CMS.

We would like to see that drug premiums are not subsidized for America’s wealthiest participants in the Part D plan. We don’t see Warren Buffett should get a 75-cents-on-the-dollar subsidy to his prescription drugs.

We are in favor of a new generation of treatment models that will better manage the chronic diseases that are 70 percent of the bill in America’s health care.

Greater use of health information technologies, a business model to promote their spread, and the identification and implementation of a medical home model will promote coordination of care and reduce costs.

John McCain has long been a supporter of faster entry by generic drugs. He favors a pathway to biogenerics. Greater use of generics and biogenerics will in fact lower the cost of pharmaceuticals in the Medicare system. And in the context of a comprehensive reform of this type, where insurance is reformed, the subsidy to private insurance is reformed, Medicare payment polices are reform, we see no reason why the Medicare Advantage plans should continue to get a $15-billion-a-year subsidy. We’ll put them on a level playing field and save some money there.

It’s an interesting spin that the Obama campaign has chosen, because some of the things that I just talked about -- managing chronic diseases, great use of health I.T., promoting prevention, greater use of generic drugs -- might sound familiar. It’s because they are in Senator Obama’s plan, and he doesn’t describe them as cuts to Medicare; he calls them things that would strengthen the system and savings.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: So the spin is inappropriate, the distortion is outrageous. It’s an attempt to simply scare America’s seniors. And that’s -- I mean (inaudible) simply answering questions about his own plan.

What did we see in the debate this week? We saw John McCain ask Barack Obama : “How will you implement your play-or-pay system?”

Very simple as we’ve always said he does, you either provide coverage according to the standard that Barack Obama will dictate to American business, or you will pay a fine. He refuses to say what that fine will be. Instead, his answer was, “Well, if you’re a small business, you’re exempt.” Then he refuses to tell us what a small business is.

So he’s got a policy, which he claims with a straight face to the American people to say, “I just explained my policy,” which neither defines who pays the fine or what the fine is.

He owes the American people a better answer. But his campaign went on record yesterday in the Wall Street Journal saying they have no intention to answer that question before November 4th.

That’s not exactly full disclosure of your -- your plans for the American people. And in the face of the kinds of distortions he’s putting on John McCain , it’s even less impressive.

He also has a comparable child mandate, he hasn’t explained that.

So in closing, I’m sorry to go on so long, but I’ve watched these ads, I’ve listened to these speeches, I have been appalled at the conduct of the Obama campaign. This is one of the most domestic issues. It deserves a debate in this campaign that is comparable to its importance to the American people. And it’s not getting that from Barack Obama .

We have got a choice between John McCain ’s approach -- which attempts to control the cost of health care, making insurance more affordable, revolutionize the treatment of disease in America, to lower its cost, to achieve higher quality outcomes, spread insurance to greater choice, giving individuals control over their futures -- versus Barack Obama -- who has, in fact, said he favors a single-payer system, something he denied to the American public in that debate. He has a system of mandates on employers, mandates on families, a big new government insurance program, a health bureaucracy. If you can’t meet the mandates, you will end up in the new plan run by the health bureaucracy.

It is an expansion of the government. It is toward an ideal which he says he likes, a single-payer system. It is reminiscent of the Democrat’s approach in pushing another important American ideal: housing for Americans through a big government Fannie-Freddie approach.

Barack Obama ’s on the path for risky subprime health care. He needs to put that straight to the American people and stop lying about John McCain ’s plan.

Be happy to take any questions.

QUESTION: Hi, Doug.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Hi, Kevin.

QUESTION: How about telling us whether you accept the Tax Policy Center’s estimate of a (inaudible) trillion dollar hole in the plan over 10 years, or, if not, what you think the amount would be? And then tell us how you would fill it; how much of it would come from Medicare and Medicaid, how much of it from other places.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: We don’t -- you know, without agreeing or disagreeing with their -- their estimate, which -- you know, we believe and have believed from the day we’ve rolled out our health care plans that the comprehensive reforms are budget neutral -- and, you know, eliminated Medicare fraud. There’s $600 billion or $700 billion over 10 years. Generic drugs, from an ExpressScript (ph) study, would get you $25 billion a year, you know, $250 billion over 10 years. And bio-generics would add to that.

Equalizing M.A. payments: $150 billion. Over 10 years, that’s a trillion dollars.

Part D needs testing gets you, you know, another $10 billion to $15 billion more.

You can get some with tort reform; not dramatic, maybe $5 billion to $7 billion.

And then, you’ve got the big ones, the chronic disease management, health I.T., other efficiency (inaudible) of that type.

You know, if you need to get $300 billion or $400 billion over 10 years, those are places to go.

The Obama campaign, I’ll point out, is looking at those areas -- chronic disease management, health I.T., and they’re claiming to get $80 billion a year, $800 billion, from health I.T., and $800 billion -- $80 billion a year from chronic disease management -- $800 billion over 10 years.

This is a more-than-paid-for plan. And the goal has never been anything other than to achieve what the research community has identified as the ability to deliver more high-quality health care to more Americans at lower cost.

And that’s what the McCain plan is intended to achieve. QUESTION: Hi, Doug, thanks for doing this.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Hi. Sure.

QUESTION: Have you ever revised that $3.6 trillion figure that you put out originally? I know you had said earlier you had some outside consultants reworking that. So is there a new number there? Question one.

Question two is, if you get the kind of acceptance rate from the public that you -- that you have described -- in other words, you took issue with the Tax Policy Center. You’ve always said they lowballed their 1 million person estimate -- and you really start financing all the rebates that would be out there, are you saying that you finance that and the $1.3 trillion hole?

Because if I have it right, they -- the Tax Policy Center got there when you took payroll taxes off the table.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, you know, we’ve looked -- we’ve now seen a bunch of outside estimates -- Tax Policy Center, Lewin analysis, HSI Networks (ph). You know, they’re out there, and there will be more.

I’m not going to say we agree or disagree with every one in every detail. But I think the broad picture that arises is one that looks at the tax plans, looks at the ability to purchase across state lines, looks at the kinds of reforms that we have in Medicare, and says that we can cover a lot more individuals.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: HSI says 25 million Americans come out of the ranks of the uninsured.

We think those are sensible estimates. And as I pointed out, we’ve got savings which, if you take the upper bound, the Obama-style estimates for chronic disease and for health I.T. are on the order of $2.6 trillion over 10 years in terms of savings. I don’t think there’s a budget problem in here anywhere.

QUESTION: Hi, Doug.

Can you clarify, are you saying that the $882 billion is just wrong over 10 years?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Yes.

QUESTION: And if so, what’s the real number?

OK.

And then, are you largely -- is also part of what you’re -- OK, so what is the number, if not $882 billion?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well...

QUESTION: And I think you’re saying that it would be cuts, but not cuts to benefits. Can you explain that a little bit more?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Yes.

I mean, the most important thing is the characterization of this as cuts and the notion that somehow $882 billion worth of necessary health care is going to be taken from America’s seniors. That’s completely inappropriate.

No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning.

Instead, Medicare will reflect -- and lead, in many cases -- the broad transformation of the American health care system away from a very expensive system that delivers in inadequately low quality outcomes toward a system that grows -- whose costs grow slower and delivers higher quality outcomes.

Those are the, quote, “savings” that we would expect to get in Medicare and beyond because we need to do that as a nation. We cannot have a system continue with the pattern we’ve had for the past three decades, every year health spending per capita exceeding income per capita by something like 2.5 percentage points per year. That’s unsustainable.

The answer is to change the system to produce higher quality outcomes at lower cost growth. And that’s what the McCain plan does. It does it using Medicare in some cases as a leading edge on payment systems, reward to coordination (inaudible) medical home, reward to prevention. That’s the approach.

And those savings could be $800 billion, they could be $1.2 trillion if you take the Tax Policy Center’s estimate. I don’t think that’s the important issue. There’s more than enough savings to not have this be a budgetary issue. And the important is those savings do not come at the expense of either the quality or the quality of health care America’s seniors will receive.

QUESTION: Yes, I’m sorry. My question’s been already asked and answered. Thank you.

QUESTION: Yes, Doug, I just have a quick question.

I think one of the earlier questions got at what I was going to ask, but in the Wall Street Journal last week it said that you said the campaign always planned to fund the tax credits in part with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. So those savings are principally this issue of going after fraud?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: The -- you know, I say to take two things.

First, I want to say that I believe the Wall Street Journal article was a terrible characterization of what our plans were, and it’s not a piece of reporting that I would people to if they want to understand what we’re up to.

Number two, we do, in fact, expect costs of delivering the same benefits to grow more slowly under these reforms. There’s no question about that.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: There will be Medicare fraud. Obviously, that’s just pure loss. About 10 percent of the program going out to criminals is something that should be unacceptable to any administration and shouldn’t be going on right now.

And then, in addition, as I mentioned, slowing the cost growth in health care in general, Medicare in particular, so the same benefits are not so expensive, premiums aren’t going up so fast, that’s at the foundation of the reforms that he is proposing.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I’ve been listening to some ads, and there is an Obama ad I heard on September the 30th that said taxpayers who make less than $250,000 a year won’t see their taxes raised one penny under an Obama administration, seniors making less than $50,000 won’t pay income taxes at all, and that some things needed to be done; in a later statement, Obama said, “Energy independence, fixing health care and improving education.”

I’m not that bright a guy, but I don’t think all of that can be done at the same time. Has somebody run figures on that to see if it can be done at the same time?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I think I’ve vented enough about Mr. Obama’s assertions about health care for one call.

I would say on energy, his plans are largely missing in action. He really has not participated in the debate over enhanced domestic production, whether it was oil, natural gas, nuclear power. He’s recently, you know, announced a policy that would de facto shut down the use of coal by regulating carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act.

Well, even with his tax plans, where he has tried to sustain for a long time three fundamental contradictions. The first being that you can give a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans when just under 50 percent pay no income tax.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Contradiction number two being how can you do that when already have plans to spend $860 billion more -- those are his proposals on the campaign -- even prior to the bailout expenses that we’ve seen in the past few weeks?

And then contradiction number three, which is, none of this is consistent with a record in which he has voted for higher taxes 94 times.

In the end, the single most striking critic of this approach was Joe the plumber, who took one look at Barack Obama ’s plan and voiced the concerns of any American businessman in the fundamental spread- the-wealth approach that Barack Obama has.

So he’s got problems meeting simply that goal. He will never achieve the other two at the same time.

OK. I just want to close and say, you know, thank you very much for joining us.

And, you know, I want to remind you, I think this is a completely unfair attack; that if we apply the same methods to his plan that they’ve applied to ours, the story that everyone on this call would be writing tonight is “ Barack Obama wants to cut Medicare by $1.6 trillion. Barack Obama wants to cut Medicaid by $800 billion.”

Those are not proposals that this campaign would support. And for them to characterize our plan as something like that is completely misleading.

ROGERS: Well, thanks, Doug.

And I think it’s pretty clear, if a claim ever cried out for a fact check, this is it.

And the reality is this: Barack Obama has campaigned for a new kind of politics, you know, telling the truth to the American people. And what we see today and what we’ve seen over the last few weeks, is a complete abandonment of any semblance of that pledge.

ROGERS: And -- and I think that the American people are starting to get to it, and I think that the -- you know, pick up on it. And -- and -- and we’ll leave it there.

Thanks, everybody. Thanks for joining.

Thank you, Doug.

We’ll talk to you soon.

END

Source: CQ Transcriptions, Oct. 17, 2008

All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ Transcriptions. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.