Senate Approves Revised SCHIP Bill

Last night, the Senate passed the latest version of the SCHIP package. The 65-30 vote (roll call is veto-proof, because enough Senators who didn't vote are reliable "yea" votes. Since the bill did not receive a veto-proof majority in the House, Congressional leaders may decide to not send the bill to the President. Instead, Senate and House negotiators appear to be working hard on a new compromise bill that could be voted on as early as next week.

read in full

One If By Legislation, Two If By Regulation

The House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform had a hearing today on the Bush administration's backdoor Medicaid cuts. Extremely loyal BudgetBlog readers may recall that the Administration has been pushing for rules that would cut Medicaid ever since the same cuts were rejected by the last (Republican-controlled!) Congress. I guess they haven't given up. The Administration is claiming that the rules will cut down on bad claims on Medicaid. Not so, says Chairman Waxman.

read in full

Responsible Fiscal Action: AARP's Perspective

We commend for your consideration the testimony presented at today's Senate Budget Committee hearing on S. 2063, the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2007, by William Novelli, CEO of AARP.

read in full

Communicating about Poverty/Inequality: A Constant Work In Progress

Inclusion put out a new report on communicating a compelling anti-poverty message, and, as anyone who follows this debate might expect, the American public isn't that keen on addressing poverty when it's defined as such. But to me, the report had a few surprising findings. First, the public isn't that receptive to messages that redefine the poor as "deserving" workers. Given these findings, the authors suggest that in appeals to the public, instead of emphasizing personal stories about the poor, advocates should focus on systemic and institutional reasons for poverty that are beyond the control of individuals. As I review later, other researchers have arrived at very similar conclusions. In addition, this research suggests that the label "working poor" may itself be problematic. Given a cultural belief that if people are industrious they will succeed, this term sounds somewhat contradictory, and is likely to trigger confusion and negative connotations, especially among those Americans who have a strong "belief in a just world."

read in full

Former Social Security Commissioner: No Cuts Necessary

Robert Ball, the former commissioner of Social Security under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, takes issue with the claim that Social Security balance requires benefit cuts. Why? Times have changed. In the Oct. 19 editorial " Mr. Giuliani's No-Tax Pledge," The Post stated: "It's no more responsible for Republicans to rule out tax increases [to strengthen Social Security] than it is for Democrats to insist on no benefit cuts." The Post praised, as a "bipartisan blend," President Ronald Reagan's acceptance of a 1983 fix that included both.

read in full

Best Medical System In The World

Another example of medical inefficiency (the foundation of the long-term fiscal problem). The Washington Post on the study showing that children's cold medication is ineffective: For years, Joshua Sharfstein shuddered whenever he walked down a drugstore aisle lined with cough and cold products for babies and toddlers. "It never ceased to aggravate me," said Sharfstein, a pediatrician and father of two young boys. "Kids with colds were getting these medicines that had never been shown to be either effective or safe."

read in full

Conservatives Prevent Veto-Proof Vote on SCHIP

The House got a little closer to the veto-proof 2/3rds majority today, but in the end conservatives basically blocked the bill once again. The vote was 265-142 (roll call). SCHIP supporters made a bunch of concessions around program eligibility. What gives? I guess these hyper-conservatives just don't want to spend more money on kids in particular, because we all know they'll throw away hundreds of billions for wars that are going nowhere.

read in full

House SCHIP Vote Today!

That was quick- the House will vote on a tweaked SCHIP bill today. The Washington Post: Just one week after failing to override President Bush's veto, House Democrats will put a new version of their $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to a vote today, hoping that minor changes will win enough Republicans to beat Bush this round.

read in full

Entitlement Hysterics and 2 New Blogs

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic has a good article on the uptick in entitlement "sky is falling" rhetoric. And there's a couple new fiscal policy blogs worth going to: the Tax Policy Center's TaxVox and FacingUp.org's new blog. One of the coolest thing about blogging is that it facilitates dialogue; hopefully we've got some interesting conversations to look forward to.

read in full

Vote No on Sen. Allard's PART Amendment

The Senate is debating the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill today (and probably tomorrow), and Sen. Wayne Allard has introduced a disturbing amendment that would automatically cut the budget of any program that was given an "ineffective" PART rating by the Office of Management and Budget. Under Allard's amendment, any program that is listed as "ineffective" under the PART would be automatically cut by 10 percent, with the amount cut used to pay down the national debt. To see which programs would be cut, see this list of "ineffective" programs on the ExpectMore.gov website: programs rated ineffective. The list includes Even Start, the Perkins loan program, vocational education grants, Upward Bound, the Workforce Investment Act programs for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers and Youth, the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant, and the Healthy Community Access program, among others. But there is a larger issue at play here than where you come down on these programs or the PART itself (and you should come down against it). Congress is granted the authority to appropriate public funds under the Constitution, not the executive branch. Enacting this amendment would transfer that authority to the executive branch, and more specifically to a number of unelected public employees whose sole job is to carry out the policy preferences of the president. Why would any Senator want to vote to give him or herself less power? What's more, imagine the degree or manipulation of future PART scores for programs covered under this bill if this administration (or any future one) knew a rating of "ineffective" would bring an automatic 10 percent cut. Something tells me we would start to see a whole lot more "ineffective" ratings for programs in the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. A vote on the amendment is likely later today or tomorrow morning. Please take 5 minutes to call your Senators offices to tell them to vote no on the Allard amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education bill.

read in full

Pages

Subscribe to The Fine Print: blog posts from Center for Effective Government