Earlier today, before the CBO cost estimate of the latest Democrat health care overhaul was officially released, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats went to the microphone to laud how wonderful the numbers were. We would, after all, they said, save money, reduce the deficit, provide health care for all, and live happily ever after.

Their pronouncements were top headlines in the news.

But when the real CBO figures were published, they told a different story. The plan would create a new entitlement whose costs would increase by 8% each year and tally to more than double the president’s projections.

Even if the CBO report showed figures the plan’s supporters could positively spin, the true story would not be so clear.

Such CBO reports are often referred to as “scores.” Think of a credit score. These days, the common perception is that any credit score above, or even near, 700 is excellent. But the more important factor is the direction of the score’s movement.

Take two borrowers with 720 credit scores. Borrower 1 had a 770 score last year, but in recent months he has missed several payments and racked up a bunch of new debt. Borrower 2 had a 650 credit score last year, but she has spent the last twelve months paying off debt and ensuring that her payments were made on time.

Look at it using a baseball analogy. In 2000, Ken Griffey, Jr. hit 40 homeruns for the Cincinnati Reds. By itself, 2000 was a great season for a Red, as the club had had very few 40-homer seasons over the previous two decades. However, Griffey was accustomed to hitting well over 40 homeruns and often more than 50 in a season prior to his arrival in Cincinnati. In retrospect, 2000 was the first year in a long decline for the future Hall of Famer, so looking at the number 40 by itself did not tell the entire truth.

Similarly, even if today’s CBO “score” could have been positive for proponents of the health care overhaul, the direction of the “score” would have told a different story. For example, previous Democrat plans called for a number of years of taxation before health care benefits would take effect. In other words, there would be a brief savings period, which made ten-year projections look better because a surplus would help cover the costs. But what would happen when one year’s health care spending was only covered by that year’s tax revenue? Deficits.

Nonetheless, the positive talk of Pelosi and Co. made the bigger headlines while the truth is discussed only in passing. Guess which perception will survive.