IF the claims are correct though, then that needs to be fixed in the bill, particularly the part about filing with the SEC.
This paper's editorial page will argue against anything the current majority party does. Their news reporting is fine, but it's widely known that the editorial page leans strongly to the right.
This same editorial page argued that the healthcare bill contained death panels. Republican politicians, including Palin and Dick Cheney, are regular writers.
These provisions of Dodd's bill have been discussed extensively on Hacker News: http://www.google.com/search?q=dodd+site%3Anews.ycombinator....
And I think you underestimate the significance of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal taking a strong position on this issue in a house editorial.
After 8 years of the "deficits don't matter" administration, all of a sudden these guys turn into budget hawks 1 month after Obama inherits their fiscal situation. They're against quote "socialized" healthcare even though the bill didn't socialize anything that wasn't already a government program.. but the more expensive Medicare Part D program was just ducky with them. Etc, etc etc.
I have no problem believing there are problems with the bill that would accidentally affect startups. But if we're talking pithy 2-sentence characterizations from a source with a history of partisanship? Citation needed.
Ok, let's back up and try to engage your brain for a second. So you have a set of 10 year projections there. Those are predictions about the future. With me so far?
Now think about what they were on January 15, 2009 as opposed to January 25, 2009.
Do you think that the act of Obama taking office changed the future and mandated a ton of future government spending? Or do you think these might be fundamentals that we were going to have to deal with regardless?
For bonus points: How much of those future deficits would you guess have to do with the increasing cost of healthcare?
And I'll leave out entirely what they might look like if we hadn't just endured 8 years of studied fingers-in-the-ears idiocy from the Bush administration. Remember that surplus in 2000?
Heritage and WSJ are concerned about deficits. Who did they support in 2000 again?
The fact that Heritage supported Reagan, opposed Clinton, supported Bush and now claim to be concerned about deficits says a lot about the Heritage Foundation.
EDIT: Awesome, downvoted for clarifying a willful misinterpretation of my original comment. Ladies and gentlemen, your conservative movement -- it's not about facts, it's about which side you're on.
Regardless, please clarify your point. Do you believe the WSJ is lying about the contents of the bill? If not, then what is the relevance of pointing out their opinion on other political matters?
I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Since they'd never lie, of course.
I didn't criticize Heritage for being conservative. I criticized Heritage for being Republican, regardless of principle or policy.
EDIT: To clarify, it's entirely possible that the provisions in the bill still being written are just as bad as the WSJ says. It's also possible that they're significantly less bad. Regardless of which they are, the WSJ would have written this exact article. Does that make my complaint regarding their worth more clear?