A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
December 21, 2005Deficit Reducing Budget Passes SenateCheney cast the deciding vote. The Washington Post reports: The bill "robs from the poor to make room for tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in the country," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Republicans passing smaller budgets, Democrats accusing them of doing it on the backs of the poor... Sounds like the two parties are hunkering down and going back to their roots inside the beltway... Or are they? My only question would be is this a budget truly intended to reduce the deficit, or is it a budget that thoughtlessly cuts programs to those people who don't vote so Republican leaders can say: "see, we are still the party of fiscal discipline?" More research is obviously needed, although on it's face I am glad that the GOP is at least veering back in the direction of fiscal responsibility. I am all for reducing deficits and smaller budgets, but I would hope that we get to that point by coming up with progressive new alternatives to how the government distributes services, rather than making cuts in places where people will bitch the least. For instance, we need to reform Medicaid, make it more efficient, but also increase the size of its scope with the intent of reaching more Americans who do not have healthcare. Posted by Mathew at December 21, 2005 12:01 PMComments
I kinda feel bad for the writers at the WashPost who have to come with the article in minutes when clearly some facts are missing or confused. How much is being cut this year? First paragraph: $40 billion cut. Later on: "...over five years." So maybe $8 billion this year? In face of a $350 billion deficit plus more tax cuts? Whoop-de-doo. More of the usual party posturing. Posted by: Oberon at December 21, 2005 12:35 PMThe five maverick Republicans-- Susan M. Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- joined James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont I think this is most telling. Bloggers here claim to be centrists. At one point bloggers here have endorsed nearly each of the above Senators with the possible exceptin of Smith as moderates. Jeffords is the only independant in the Senate. If the Republican moderates/centrists jump ship over this bill, can it be really good for centrist America? Posted by: konfuzed at December 21, 2005 01:00 PMFor the record, McCain, Hagel, Graham, Coleman, Dole, Specter, and Isakson, who I would also consider to be center-leaning, voted for the budget, but yes, the most liberal of the moderates within the GOP, with the exception of Smith, voted "no." I don't know how that should be interpreted. More Post highlights of the budget here. For example: Agriculture. Achieves $2.7 billion in savings from agriculture conservation programs and delaying advance subsidy payments to farmers. Extends for two years a $1 billion payment program for dairy farmers if milk prices drop. That is a good one, in my book. Posted by: Mathew at December 21, 2005 01:17 PMSo maybe $8 billion this year? In face of a $350 billion deficit plus more tax cuts? Whoop-de-doo. That is assuming a lot, but it was my thought as well. Posted by: Mathew at December 21, 2005 01:19 PMMy question: does this budget TRULY cut? Or is this government-speak for merely reducing rate of increase? E.g., a program slated to get a 5% increase but later only gets a 3% increase is called a "budget cut" in Washington. However, that ain't a cut by fiscally conservative standards but a budget increase. Posted by: shay at December 21, 2005 02:26 PMkonfuzed: That was not the bloggers calling them maverick, if that was your point. That was the Washington Post. I support their actions. This is still a budget busting bill with no real deficit reduction. The cuts are focused on areas that most of the Republican leadership does not like and actually help thier constituancy. Things like the Bridge to Nowhere still sick in my craw. Yes, that particular item was struck. HOWEVER, the money still went to Alaska without any strings attached. I bet that bridge still gets built with that money. A real cut would have been to actually cut the money totally. that would be an example of budget cutting. Posted by: Jim M at December 21, 2005 03:12 PMreducing deficits and smaller budgets...For instance, we need to reform Medicaid, make it more efficient, but also increase the size of its scope with the intent of reaching more Americans who do not have healthcare.Smaller budgets AND increasing scope of federal healthcare coverage are mutually exclusive. If we want univeral healthcare we WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. "Improving efficiency " WILL NOT GET US THERE (if only because what's an "inefficiency" to you is a "necessity" to me. For example that extra day in the hospital after my hernia surgery.) Oh, and the biggest cost to Medicaid (healthcare for the poor) is for nursing home coverage for debilitated elderly. This minimal reduction in the deficit demonstrates the reluctance for anyone to do the "real heavy lifting". Smaller budgets AND increasing scope of federal healthcare coverage are mutually exclusive. First of all, I disagree, second of all, you miss the point. I submit that some government programs can be reformed and expanded. Furthermore, just because you expand the scope of one government program doesn't mean you cannot decrease the scope of others. Our entitlement programs are screwed up, no doubt, but that doesn't mean they cannot be fixed to work. Posted by: Mathew at December 21, 2005 04:06 PMfor the record the deficit stands at over 8 trillion dollars. this is fodder for campaigning, nothing else. Posted by: Marcus at December 21, 2005 04:08 PMMatthew; just because you expand the scope of one government program doesn't mean you cannot decrease the scope of others.I wasn't precise in my rebuttal; I should have said "smaller budgets in a specific program" and "increasing scope IN THAT PROGRAM" are mutually exclusive. I know this isn't strickly true but I'd suggest its been generaaly true in government sponsored health care. Posted by: c3 at December 21, 2005 06:16 PM The actual numbers and glaring gap in magnitude between our current and rapidly growing debt on the one hand, and the piddling tweaks done here on the other hand reveal this to be pretty much a non-story. The only thing that's going to steer us back towards fiscal sanity is a tough balanced budget amendment. It seems to me that the vast majority on both sides of the aisle would prefer to continue to posture, preaching to their choirs. It's clear to me that congress is strongly committed to spending our money faster than they can tax it away from us, using the the money and power to accumulate more money and power, borrowing evermore, and leaving future genrations to pay. At this point, we might need a giant sit-in in Washington. Frankly, I'd vote for a constitutional amendment that say that if the budget isn't balanced, congressmen don't get paid, and then we start seizing campaign funds. Posted by: bk at December 21, 2005 08:35 PM"A House-passed provision, for instance, would have allowed states to establish preferred medication lists for Medicaid, then steer patients to cheaper drugs by charging higher co-payments for medicines off the list. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) garnered headlines last month by winning an exclusion from the provision for mental health drugs, a boon for one of his state's biggest companies, Eli Lilly. But the final House-Senate compromise eliminated the preferred-drug list provision, even though it maintained a House provision that allows states for the first time to charge poor Medicaid patients co-payments, premiums and deductibles. Likewise, the compromise eliminated a Senate-passed provision that would have saved the federal government $36 billion over the next decade by eliminating financial incentives to lure managed care companies into Medicare. Under White House pressure, the Senate provision was gutted in the House-Senate compromise." If you think the result would have been much different on those two items if party roles were reversed, you've not been watching Washington politics long enough. Posted by: Tully at December 21, 2005 09:32 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
