Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats released a report detailing the effects of the Bush Administration's Medicaid rule changes (one went into effect on Monday while several others are pending). According to the report, the new rules would cost state governments a total of $50 billion over five years - over three times the administration's $15 billion estimate. The report is the product of the House committee's request to states to estimate their expected federal funding losses due to the proposed Medicaid rule changes.

The Bush administration is pursuing or has achieved several policy goals that work to cut social support services by reducing federal funding for Medicaid programs. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released all of these policies — three proposed rules, one interim final rule, and two final rules — in the past nine months.

The House voted (380-34) to approve an economic stimulus package passed by the Senate hours earlier. The measure now awaits the president's signature. Congress has decided that the hungry, the unemployed, and the cold should continue to go without adequate food, adequate income, and adequate heat, because putting money into their hands would do little stimulate the economy as they probably wouldn't spend it.

Writing on the Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry, rbluey calls me out for my bashing (here and here) of Brian Riedl's paper Tax Rebates Will Not Stimulate The Economy and recent statements he made in a BNA article($). The following is my response. Coming back to tenth-grade economics, in which we learn that "economic growth" refers to the change in the value of all goods and services (gross domestic product, or GDP) produced over a given time period in a given set of product and service markets, we can make any number of assertions that activity X will result in an increased value of such production. Riedl's paper relies on this definition economic growth ("By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before."), but then claims that increased consumer expenditure, prompted by an increase in consumer income enabled by government transfers (i.e. tax rebates), do not, in fact cause the economy to produce more stuff in 2008 than it would have without such rebates. This is wrong (see e.g., CBO Director Peter Orszag, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, Harvard Economics professor and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and President Reagan's chief economic adviser Martin Feldstein, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers).