Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Man robbed at Tallmadge Avenue eatery
Another winter punch heading toward Ohio
Four teens restrain man, take items from his Akron home
Complaints against officer keep coming
Police: Ohio girl dies after fall into snow bank
Region makes way for latest batch of snow; cancellations rise
Cuyahoga Falls residents come home to find burning couch on balcony
Blogs:
First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight
Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs
The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30
Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win
Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated
Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9
Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day
Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball
All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions
Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up
Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.
Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend
HRLite House:
OFCCP Report
Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'
See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering
In Congress, Democrats lack votes to drive changes in domestic spending. The casualties are programs such as children's health insurance
Published on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007
This weekend, the House Democrats bowed to the cruel reality. In an effort to move on budgets for federal departments before the Christmas break, they fashioned an omnibus bill for domestic spending that largely stays within Bush's spending limits.
If the White House appears to have won that arm-wrestling contest (it said it is encouraged by some of the concessions), the confrontation has also underscored the task the Democrats face, with their slim majorities, to shift spending to crucial programs that would be shortchanged by a president lately touting fiscal responsibility. No effort this year has illustrated this contest of priorities than the failed attempt to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Last week, Bush rejected for the second time Congress' bid to spend an additional $35 million over five years to cover the health of approximately 10 million poor children.
Among other objections, the president assailed the increased spending (from a proposed increase in taxes on tobacco products). His own budget offered a meager $5 billion more to SCHIP for five years. That amount would be inadequate even to sustain the current enrollment. Missing on the president's radar was that more working households are losing health coverage as a result of high premiums or spending higher percentages of the family income on health care.
It was disturbing that the White House chose to wage an ideological battle against ''socialized medicine'' using the popular and successful children's health-care program as a tool. More discouraging yet were the misleading claims (for instance, that the Democrats included middle-class families with incomes around $80,000 a year) that Bush deployed.
The Senate approved the initial SCHIP bill with bipartisan margins wide enough to override a veto threat. In the House, where the approval margin was narrower, there weren't enough votes to counter Bush when he did veto the bill in October.
To their credit, advocates of SCHIP continued to tweak the proposals to address Bush's major concerns. Among other changes, the revised bill capped eligibility for SCHIP at 300 percent (about $60,000 for a family of four) of the federal poverty level. It strengthened incentives to enroll first the poorest children eligible for Medicaid. It speeded up the time to remove childless adults from the program.
If the hope was that the changes would persuade Bush to ensure more low-income children received the benefit of good health care, it did not work out. He still claimed the cost was unacceptably high, even as uninsurance among children is rising again.
Congressional Democrats have conceded their helplessness against veto threats. They should hold out for smarter spending priorities.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
