The ECAP Coalition issued a statement on the 147 House Republicans who think it's smart to cozy up to the President and his severe budget: 147 House Republicans Cave to Pressure from Right-Wingers to Support Bush Veto and Cut Funding for Americans in Need Congress Has a Clear Choice: Stand with the President's Cuts to Health and Education, or Support America's Hardworking Families WASHINGTON, DC — According to press reports this morning, 147 Republican Members of Congress have caved to political pressure from the GOP leadership and special interests and signed a "Republican Study Committee" letter pledging to support a Presidential veto of any appropriations bill that increase spending on health care, education, and other critical needs for lower- and middle-income families. By signing the right-wing "Republican Study Committee" letter, Members of Congress were pledging to sustain a veto of appropriations measures sight unseen. Congress passed a budget last month that begins to reverse six years of misguided priorities in previous Republican budgets, but the White House has threatened to veto any domestic spending above the President's requested levels, claiming that these much needed and overdue increases would be too expensive. But the fact is that the President's budget would spend far more on tax cuts for millionaires than it would save from all of the cuts to domestic discretionary programs[i].

This afternoon, the Senate Appropriations Committee released the list of FY 2008 discretionary spending caps allocated to each of its subcommittees of jurisdiction, under Budget Act section 302(b). The House Appropriations announced its own 302(b) allocations on June 5.

A good article in the New York Times today, on the disconnect between price and quality of health care services: Stark evidence that high medical payments do not necessarily buy high-quality patient care is presented in a hospital study set for release today. In a Pennsylvania government survey of the state's 60 hospitals that perform heart bypass surgery, the best-paid hospital received nearly $100,000, on average, for the operation while the least-paid got less than $20,000. At both, patients had comparable lengths of stay and death rates.

One last thought on the Hamilton Project- I believe they do not serve the cause of fighting inequality. Stay with me on this one. Take this statement: Industrial policies and direct market interventions can try to change the before-tax distribution of income. But ultimately such policies harm the economy—for example, excessively high living-wage laws can result in large job losses for low-skilled workers. Factually, I believe the statement is wrong. Government intervention in markets can promote the common good. Everything that's known about health care provision is a case in point.