The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation ought to be happy. The coverage of the House budget resolution more or less includes their talking points about how "spending is the problem" with the federal budget. What's more, these ideas are not attributed; they're just presented as facts that the reporters decided, for an unnamed reason, to add to these stories. THe New York Times:

Jesse Jackson has a good editorial on the African American children being left behind by federal policy. One passage I thought needed playing up: We need longer school years and far better teachers, and teacher education. We need less discrimination in spending, in discipline, in advanced placement. Some of this costs money. But, Williams says, we're not spending the money we currently have well. For example, our broken health-care system is killing school budgets. Health-care costs are going up 10 to 15 percent a year, far outstripping normal increases in public funding.

The Senate Budget Committee reported out its FY 2008 Budget Resolution yesterday on a straight 12 - 11 party line vote. All of the funding levels we reported earlier in the week remained the same after the mark-up. Only a few amendmends were adopted, the most significant of which was one offered by committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), which required any new entitlement or tax legislation that would increase the budget deficit to clear a 60-vote point of order until the president puts forward and Congress approves legislation to restore solvency to the Social Security trust funds. The committee rejected a number of amendments, including one from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) to create a 60-vote point of order against any budget resolution that failed to reach balance, excluding Social Security funds, in five years. By excluding Social Security funds, the deficit would be significantly higher than the current level and the budget would be that much more difficult to balance. Funny that Bunning did not advocate for using this larger deficit figure when the Republicans controled the Senate. The panel also rejected an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to instruct the Finance Committee to find $33.8 billion in savings over five years, with the intent that the reductions come from putting in place a proposal by President Bush to reduce reimbursements to Medicare providers.

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe has a good post on health care costs. His most topical point is that the Bush health care tax package, which is ostensibly intended to reduce health care costs through financial incentives for health care consumers, is hopelessly misguided and beyond repair. Most health care spending occurs among a small minority of spenders who receive very expensive, intensive care that they likely see as not being optional. Incentives one way or the other probably won't make much of a difference.