Eating Our Own With Our Tail Between Our Legs

by: Melissa

Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:43 AM EST

CQ and a number of other sources are announcing that Democrats plan to capitulate to Bush's demands on 11 of the 12 remaining appropriations bills.

The spending bills, combined, are $22 billion over Bush's FY2008 budget request. An initial offer to "split the difference" - so, $11 billion over his budget - was rejected via Jim Nussle, White House Budget Director. 

It appears that the House will draft an omnibus spending bill that will fall within Bush's budget request. And no, they're not taking Rep. David Obey's (D-WI) suggestion to strip out all the earmarks to meet that goal.

The House bill will contain $30-some-odd billion for the war in Afghanistan. When the omnibus reaches the Senate, another $70 billion will be added for the war in Iraq. That $70 billion by the way, comes free and clear of any sort of timetables, benchmarks, standards, or accountability.

Why is this bad? The big reasons:

1) The federal government is currently running on a continuing resolution. In 2006, Congress failed to pass the FY2007 spending bills so they punted and funded all government programs at FY2006 levels.

This caused hiring freezes, delays and reductions in outlays to states for defense-related planning (e.g., BRAC in Maryland), and lower outlays for federal-state share plans like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and more. It also meant that, essentially, most agencies took a hit since inflation rose and funding did not.  

2) No strings attached to yet more war funding. According to the CBO, we've spent $640,000,000,000 on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we reduce troops to 30,000 by 2010, we're looking at an additional $570,000,000,000. If not, we're looking at another $1,055,000,000,000 dollars by 2017. Neither of these figures include the cost of the administration’s initiative to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, which CBO estimates will cost $162,000,000,000 over the 2008–2017 period.

I am appalled that the Democrats are going to eat their own - namely the 73 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus (of which Elijah Cummings and Albert Wynn are members). I anticipate being further appalled when some of the 73 go back on their word and vote for this monstrosity.

I am appalled that the Democrats are probably going to roll back good, progressive policy in the omnibus, like weaking or repealing the Mexico City Policy, to get the thing signed into law so they can go home to their districts by Christmas.

I am embarrassed for the party. I am embarrassed to call myself a Democrat.

Edited to add: As I guessed, language weakening or repealing the atrocious Mexico City policy will NOT be included in the omnibus bill. Apparently Nancy Pelosi believes that Congress' "first and foremost" responsibility is to negotiate a spending bill "that will be signed" by President Bush.  

SCHIP: Another Chance at Roscoe Bartlett. Err, Nevermind (Updated)

by: Melissa

Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:13 AM EDT

UPDATE: President Bush has just said he'll veto this new SCHIP measure as well. Given that the Democrats are unlikely to find 13 votes, even with the changes, to override the veto, I think we'll see a clean extension or extensions of the program until November 2008.  

The new version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill is now available. The bill is HR 3963 and is available via the House Rules Committee's website.

The legislation would:

(1) cap family income eligibility at 300% of the poverty level  (currently $62,000 for a family of four);

(2) bar illegal immigrants from enrolling in SCHIP by requiring the  Social Security Administration to verify the citizenship of all applicants;

(3) require states to remove all  childless adults (exceptions for pregnant women) from SCHIP by the end of 2008, instead of 2009; and

(4) require a GAO to report to  Congress on states' efforts to minimize crowd-out (parents dropping private coverage in favor of public-subsidized coverage).

As in the vetoed version, the new legislation would raise the tobacco tax by 61 cents, bringing it to $1 per pack. The increased funding would ensure that all eligible kids could be enrolled in the program. Please note that the program overall would not be expanded. To the contrary, the program would be contracted somewhat. The constant rhetoric around program expansion is false. Any decision, now or in the future, to cover children or families above 200% of the federal poverty line would be made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). 

The entire brohuhaha over covering families with incomes up to $82,500 per year is a red herring. Yes, New York state applied to CMS for a waiver to cover families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty line. And CMS said "no." They have had and will continue to have the power to restrict state waivers and to regulate the program in ways both good and bad. 

Why is this important to Maryland residents?

Second Verse, Same as the First

by: Melissa

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:12 PM EDT

On Thursday (yes, as in tomorrow) the Democrats are bringing a re-tooled version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization to the floor for a vote.

According to some sources the bill will include three substantive changes:

(1) an explicit prohibition on benefits for illegal immigrants, possibly with some some some of enforcement/penalty provisions;

(2) a one-year phase out of chilldless adults enrolled in the program, rather than two-year as in the original bill; and

(3) an explicit prohibition on covering kids from family incomes above 300 percent of the federal poverty line (about $62,000 for a family of four)

There is also talk of family income/asset caps (e.g., a cap on money in the bank or how much your house is worth), on reducing fraud in enrollment, and on "incentivizing" families from dropping private coverage to enroll in SCHIP.

I've written about why I think family asset caps should be carefully considered.

As for "incentivizing" families -- something Adam Putnam (R-FL), chair of the Republican Conference is concerned about -- states already have lengthy (six months to one year) waiting periods before children can enroll. Frankly, I'd like to see a shorter waiting period as a child without health insurance is only one car accident, one asthma attack, or one cavity away from incurring serious medical debt, serious complications, or serious funeral costs. 

SCHIP Next Steps

by: Melissa

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM EDT

Now that the veto override has killed the underlying bill (HR 976) a couple of things are happening:

SCHIP Override Unsuccessful

by: Melissa

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:16 PM EDT

The veto override just failed. It was 273-156. 

Roscoe Bartlett voted not to override the veto. Only two Democrats voted not to override -- Marshall (GA) and Taylor (MS). Forty-four (44) Republicans voted to override.

I hope to have a post with next steps up very shortly.

SCHIP Override Debate Starting NOW

by: Melissa

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 11:03 AM EDT

In case anyone is interested, the House attempt to override the president's veto of HR 976 is starting right now.

John Dingell (D-MI) is controlling the time for Democrats. Joe Barton (R-TX) is controlling the time for Republicans. 

You can tune in to CSPAN (TV or online) to watch the debate.

SCHIP Grip

by: Native Son

Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:58 AM EDT

I know it wasn't my doing but I do appreciate that posters here and at Red Maryland (and yes I mean Red Maryland) have started ranting (a bit) less and trying to think more.  There are exceptions.

Now that we're talking the issue, let's put the debate in perspective.  There are two (and only two) questions that need to be settled from a political and policy perspective.

1) Should the SCHIP program be reauthorized?

I think this is the weakness of the Conservative position.  They frequently argue against the re-authorization as if it should not happen at all.  The debate boils down to one key question: do voters want this health care program or is it too much creeping socialized medicine (e.g. socialism)?

As I said before, this is a loser issue for the Republicans because a VAST majority like the program and want it reauthorized.  The creeping socialism argument has failed. Completely stonewalling this program will kill local Republicans and national ones.  Even Republicans want healthcare addressed.

Put this one to bed.  The debate is over - the people are united and consistent.  Arguing against it can only help the Dems (so be my guest). Move on to #2.

2) Who should be covered by it?

The polls above give a good sense of which way the public is leaning on this.  However, there is clearly room for debate as to whether it should cover 200% of poverty level or 400% of poverty level, how it gets paid for, etc.  Many of the concerns were actually addressed in the vetoed bill but let's assume questions remain for the sake of argument.

I can put this simply...our elected officials need to compromise and get the deed done.  No one on either side is going to loose an election based on whether the number is 400% or something a bit less.  This is what we expect our elected officials to do.  No one will get any traction objecting to a compromise. One might even call most of this just posturing in advance of those compromise discussions (if you were cynical). 

There is plenty in this for everyone.  Dems need a win lest Pelosi's term become known as impotent.  Repubs need to back away from the ledge and do SOMETHING that the voters want if they are to have any hope of staving off collapse next year.

Late Night Video

by: Isaac Smith

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:51 PM EDT

Meanwhile, to drive the point home about what's at stake with the SCHIP veto override vote on Thursday, here's two-year-old Bethany Wilkerson:

The reaction from the right wing has been, sadly, predictable.

Carroll County Democratic Club: Rally Tonight to support S-CHIP bill

by: Andrew Kujan

Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:38 AM EDT

Update: I can't comment on how the rallies went at the other locations, but the rally in Westminster appeared to not have happened at all.  I spoke with Walter Ludwig, and the gist of it is that in an effort to be on the safe side of the law (see Issac's comment below), the organizers were forced to make some last minute changes that resulted in tonights troubles. I personally apologize to anyone who went searching for a rally that wasn't happening. Either way, I hope that this will not be the end of local actions to highlight the disasterous vote of Roscoe Bartlett on S-CHIP. 

NYT Reports on SCHIP in Western Maryland

by: Isaac Smith

Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:30 AM EDT

A propos of the poll mentioned earlier, the New York Times takes a snapshot of the SCHIP debate going on in Frederick:

Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett is confident that in voting against a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, he reflected the views of his conservative Congressional district in western Maryland. But some of his constituents are not so sure.

[...]

“Roscoe just looks mean and petty,” said Amy-Catherine McEwan, a manager at the Frederick County Humane Society. “He looks like Snidely Whiplash, the cartoon villain, taking medicine away from little kids.”

But Walter T. Mills, the proprietor of a barbershop here for 32 years, said he and many of his customers agreed with Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. Mills, a Republican, summarized the reasons for his opposition to the child health bill in seven words: “It’s too costly. We can’t afford it.”

Read the whole thing. Oh, and a shout-out to Janine for getting her picture in the paper.