Last Friday, the administration killed a major portion of the healthcare law, called CLASS, or the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/14/ap/health/main20120670.shtml [Broken]). Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged that the program was simply not financially workable, this after months of saying the opposite, that they'd be able to make it work. Her department tried for nineteen months to figure that out, but couldn't. A big part of the reason why is that it was a voluntary program, and thus in order to be workable, a second mandate to the healthcare law would have been required. An important thing to note however is that the CLASS program was one of the main deficit-reduction measures the Affordable Care Act employed. The CBO had estimated that the CLASS program would contribute about $80 billion towards deficit reduction, which now isn't going to happen. To me, this goes back to the argument regarding the impossibility of actually figuring out the cost of big, complex pieces of legislation such as the AFA, no matter how honest and brilliant the people at the CBO are. The CBO scored the program as reducing the deficit. The proponents of the AFA criticize Republicans who want to repeal the AFA by saying that doing so will increase the deficit. The Republicans pointed out that this cost was arrived at by relying on various assumptions, estimates, and so forth, and thus was untrustworthy. And here we see a prime example. It was assumed that the CLASS program would be workable (even though from the get-go, this had been called into question). By assuming it would be workable, the CBO estimated it would contribute to deficit reduction. But now we see that it is not workable, meaning it will not reduce the deficit, which means the CBO was incorrect. Another point this makes for me is that the Republicans were criticized for questioning the integrity of the CBO. The Republicans never questioned the CBO's integrity (at least as far as I know). Their major contention was that no matter how honest, the CBO's claims simply were not credible because of the above (the assumptions, the estimates, the overall complexity and size of the bill, etc...). The thing is, this now calls into question the entire bill I think. If a major mistake was made regarding how a major portion of the bill would contribute to deficit reduction, what other assumptions were made regarding other portions of the bill to make it seem cost-effective?