Actually, your argument is nowhere near logical. What you are saying is like saying we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater without first checking to see if the baby needs to be thrown out. The rules of logic actually say that since Nutting's analysis is flawed, he has not proven his conclusion. But that does NOT necessarily mean his conclusion is wrong. I hope you see the difference. I invite you to do as I did and look at the actual CBO data and come to your OWN conclusion based on the DATA and not based solely on the opinion of another person.

The problem I have is nowhere does Coulter prove that Nutting’s overall CONCLUSION is incorrect. She needs to present an alternate analysis for public scrutiny that shows what the un-fudged numbers should be and proves that we should come to a different conclustion. But all she does is attack Nutting’s analysis and imply – not prove – that his conclusion must be wrong. I analyzed the raw CBO numbers myself which, as far as I know, don't care who signed what when. Unless there’s something major that I’ve missed (which is possible), it looks like Nutting’s main conclusion holds up to scrutiny.