Save SCHIP for Children's Sakes

Nearly everyone professes a desire to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), set to expire in September. Disagreement persists on funding levels & sources, qualification thresholds, and state discretion for variances. Is this a healthy policy debate, or a platform for ideological grandstanding? For the sake of children's health, let's hope SCHIP is funded at levels to protect the truly vulnerable.

There is a policy debate here worth having, but hold on there and look at the scope and the big picture before allowing the ideologues to drag us into minutiae. SCHIP (pronounced ess-chip) is a program which America's governors agree across party lines has benefited the hard working families most deserving of health insurance for their children that they otherwise simply couldn't afford. Everyone agrees that renewing the program for five years at the current level of $25 billion for five years is not enough. The White House wants to limit the expansion to an additional $5 billion, the Senate's bipartisan version expands the program by $35 billion and the House version (HR 3162) by $50 billion. Co-author and conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's made this statement on the floor in favor of the Senate version (S 1893).

The White House is attempting to don the garments of fiscal restraint in threatening a veto of excessive Congressional expansion of SCHIP. Ahem...

In 2003, Bush famously signed into law the most expensive health bill in our nation's history. That bill with a stated price tag of $400 billion over 10 years, almost didn't pass, as Tom DeLay had to coerce one fiscal conservative with a political threat against his son to get the necessary vote. Later we learned that the administration already knew that the price tag was being understated by over $100 billion, but the actuary with that information was being muzzled by his boss, so Congress might pass it. Never mind that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill were the pharmaceuticals and HMOs, much more than the seniors it was supposed to benefit, who in spite of all that government spending were actually going to have their out of pocket costs increase. Multiple sources now tell us that the actual cost to taxpayers of this gargantuan largesse to big pharma and HMO will exceed $1 trillion dollars, though the White House denies them. Note, however, the quiet admission that the cost is over $500 billion.

Yes some perspective is in order.



So this administration wants to trim $30-45 billion off of a program which directly benefits the underinsured in the name of fiscal responsibility, when four years ago it was willing to lie about the cost of a program it supported to the tune of $135 billion, when many of those dollars are an indirect benefit, which simultaneously lined the pockets of the executives who really have Bush's ear.

Yes I understand that the 2003 program is showing a 10 year cost, whereas the 2007 SCHIP graph is showing a 5 year cost - but still look at the difference between columns 5 and 6, which the Administration is declaring a willingness to veto over, compared to the difference betwee columns 2 and 3 which the Administration was willing to LIE over. When it comes to cost control this administration has no credibility whatsoever. It simply says whatever it wants for political reasons, with no apparent regard for the public good.

When all is said and done, this war the President started will likely cost us over $2 trillion dollars, dwarfing further the bars on the graph above - and that doesn't even attempt to assign a value to the lost lives of soldiers and civilians, or the damage to our national image across the globe.

Yes there is a policy debate worth having about SCHIP. From Kaiser to the AARP to pundits to policy journals, folks are weighing in with the specifics. Maybe the House version needs to be scaled back or includes earmarks which don't belong there. I'll take Orrin Hatch's word for it that in the Senate version, "my Democrat colleagues made sacrifices in endorsing this bill and in sacrificing program expansions they so dearly advocated". I personally might prefer the House version, but this President ought to be convinced to sign some compromise - perhaps close to that bipartisan effort in the Senate. I would urge my Congressman to work to present a bill that can be quickly approved, but one which accounts for the realities that the working poor and the working lower middle class must face in health care. Some states have already run out of funds, and in instances children may be literally dying because their parents can't afford the procedures they require.

Republicans are correct about one thing

The Democratic overnight session forcing Republicans to engage in a real filibuster was more theater than substance. Nonetheless it was theater which afforded the Democrats the opportunity to show the 60% of Americans who believe that funding of the war SHOULD be tied to deadlines for withdrawal, that they- Congressional Democrats - finally get it.

A lot of the commentary from pundits about the war and American opinion misses the point, but when you hear that the Congress is "tone-deaf" or that they are "behind the American public" on this issue, that's essentially correct. Back in late May, the Congressional Democrats in both houses capitulated, and gave Bush pretty much the funding bill he wanted, instead of relentlessly insisting on including a deadline, and forcing Bush to continually veto funding in order to avoid any deadline. The erroneous thinking was that the public would ultimately blame Congress in such a standoff which risked resulting in the troops not being funded at all. My argument at the time was that among the majority who oppose the war, Bush would take the blame in such a standoff. The contrary view seemed to be based in part on public reaction following the government shutdown of 1995 in which Clinton would not sign a bill with Republican conditions he did not want, and the government temporarily shutdown. The public blame at the time went to Congress. I say such reactions depend on the particulars, and the recent CBS/NYT poll suggests a majority of Americans would have approved of Congress insisting on deadlines in May, in spite of April polling which suggested the opposite. Clearly the Democrats' lack of spine in standing up to Bush is the major factor in bringing Congressional approval levels so low.

Now let me be perfectly clear. Majority opinion does not make that opinion correct. In February 2003 I was part of a vocal minority within America opposing our invasion of Iraq. We were correct.

If some action is right, then time will vindicate standing firm in spite of public opinion. Bush still hopes for such historic vindication in spite of all evidence and common sense which suggest otherwise. In May the Democrats did not need to fund this madness, and should have stood firm because it was right, not because the public would approve. Instead they guessed about public opinion, and allowed Bush to deepen the quagmire without conditions. Now that they are down to the low 20s in public approval, maybe they're finally getting it.

Bringing cots into the Senate chamber was most definitely political theater. It was welcome theater, and long overdue.

Capitulation

Unfortunately there is nothing else to call it.

It's being said a million times in a million ways - and hopefully the media and the Democratic leadership will wake up to the fact that it's not just the "loony left" who want to see Congress stand up to this Administration and insist that we begin exiting from their insane and failed military boondoggle in Iraq.

An accidental similarity in title of one of my posts of a year ago with a recent opinion piece by Mark Buchanan published by the New York Times, has led me to that article which seeks to explain the disconnect between the media's "conventional wisdom" about the feelings of the American people and the breadth and depth of what they really feel. It's an interesting read, but with the Times odd policy of making opinion available only by subscription, I can point you instead to this reproduction of it.

I try to regularly watch Washington Week in Review, largely because it keeps me in touch with the DC pundits' "conventional wisdoms", but I frequently bristle at what they choose to cover or ignore, and at the characterizations of perfectly reasonable beliefs as being "fringe". Dan Balz is particularly nauseating - but I digress. Of course if you pay attention to the sponsors of this "public television" offering, one quickly sees big oil, big agribusiness, and military contractors. Who are we kidding? Brancaccio's NOW and anything Bill Moyers does in contrast is funded solely by foundations or socially conscious businesses.

So I sit here heartsick and dismayed that the Democratic leadership was so gutless that it could not come back with a bill that mandated a sane exit as a contingency to funding. It's even more sickening that so many Democrats voted for this capitulation - both in the House and the Senate.

Certainly I called both my Senators (Murray and Cantwell) to express my dismay, and my Congressman (Inslee) to applaud his courage.

Still, I think it is important not to come unhinged. By all means, let us point out that people are dying due to these decisions, but let us be aware that this is but one vote, and our continued engagement can still play a role in subsequent votes. I am not abandoning the Democrats over this, nor will I drop out. The voice of dissent is growing. To use it effectively we must continue to be involved - not drop out in disgust.

The Democratic leadership has sadly ceded the Republican talking point that a vote against an unreasonable funding resolution is a vote against the troops - we must not cede the talking point that only the leftwing fringe would do otherwise. That is provably not the case, but the more of us who come unhinged, the easier it will be for the opposition to paint us as such.

Choose hope - stay resolute - adopt a calm anger

We are here to stay.

Democrats: Don't Be Timid!

The veto on the war spending bill is now official, and the ball is in the Democrats' court.

Now is the time to pressure our Democratic lawmakers not only to hold their ground but to be even more assertive. Bush has already refused your compromise: take something away.

When a petulant child misbehaves, no one advises the parents to compromise with him. That would reward the bad behavior and encourage more mischief. Bush may not be a child, but he certainly acts like one. Frankly I'm happy for this veto. The embedded timelines in the bill gave Bush far too much latitude to simply ignore them. The American people are fed up. If the Democrats can get a tougher bill to pass, it will be the President who is then up against the wall. As time is running out his veto would become the thing that denies support for the troops.

It has always been this president and his administration who is most guilty of not supporting our troops:

Insufficient body armor(Just one of many reports)
Stop-loss extensions of tours of duty(example of a mother's protest)
Recalling soldiers for third redeployments(current search of Google news for sample stories)
Insufficient training for national guard sent for service
Not taking care of our returning veterans(Fox News, no less)

If the Dems can't get sufficient support for making the redeployment out of Iraq mandatory, then they should add more conditions IN SUPPORT OF THE TROOPS based on the foregoing. They should not remove language calling for redeployment out of Iraq, also IN SUPPORT OF THE TROOPS, in order to make Bush's signing more likely.

The conventional wisdom says the timetable will be removed in favor of more solid benchmarks. That is based on the reality that the vote on the last bill was close, and some Senators seem unlikely to be willing to hold their ground. The conventional wisdom can change if enough of those Senators and Congresspeople hear from their constituents demanding that they not cave in to a president intent on defying the will of the people. If the Democrats stay tough, the charge that they are not supporting the troops will not have sticking power.

It has become quite evident that it is Bush who will not support the very troops who he is asking to risk their lives for his misadventure. Support our troops. Demand that they be brought home!

Kucinich is right - Cheney must go

It's a sad fact that politics frequently results in the appointment of people unfit for the duties of their office. Libby, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Safavian, Foggo, and Mike Brown, are among the Bush appointees who have already left under a cloud of disapproval and/or scandal. But the most dangerous of the lot is only a heartbeat away (if that) from the Presidency. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is right: It's time to remove Cheney from power.

Mere growing disapproval of Cheney is not sufficient cause for removing him from office, but Kucinich details plenty of supporting documents for all three articles of impeachment in his House Resolution 333. It's a shame that only candidates mocked by the media, or retired politicians, seem to have the courage to speak the truth.

Immediately after the election, I cautioned restraint, suggesting that a positive agenda must come before recriminations against our outlaw executive branch. Today I still agree with Woody Mena that positive legislation needs to be front and center of the Democratic Congress' agenda, and must be advanced at least as aggressively as investigations into Republican wrongdoing.

Nonetheless, we cannot continue to ignore the elephant in the room. It remains clear that the Vice President is stubbornly committed to a reckless and violent foreign policy. His approach has permeated the disastrous decision making which has been the hallmark of Bush's foreign policy. Bush asks for us to give their "new strategy" a chance, but there can be no real new strategy until he clears house. Gates has been a huge improvement over Rumsfeld, but the attack dog is still pulling the levers.

The Bush apologists will insist that "even the Democrats" were convinced that WMDs were there. But if there was anyone in the White House who had reason to doubt it, it was Cheney. His repeated trips to CIA headquarters were an obvious attempt to collect exactly the intelligence which suggested the worst, while ignoring all intelligence to the contrary. Perhaps Bush was misled, but Cheney continues to push the case for an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, long after all serious scholars have dismissed the possibility.

Then there is the probable criminal conduct surrounding the blown cover of Valerie Plame. The day Libby was indicted, it was an outrage that Cheney did not resign. The second in command should be above suspicion. An honorable man could have spoken of the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. A guilty man needs to stay put to cover his tracks. Patrick Fitzgerald may not have found the smoking gun to prove Cheney's criminality in a court of law, but he didn't mince words when he stated "there is a cloud over the vice president."

If this vice president is not lying, then he is seriously self-deluded. Either way, he ought to go.

The Fight for Congress

Most pundits say there is little chance of the Democrats wresting control of the House of Representatives from the GOP this election year. The latest congressional redistricting in most states further solidified the creation of safe districts for incumbents such that very few districts are expected to be in play in any given election year. With the Republicans currently enjoying a 228-206 advantage, few have dared to suggest that the Democrats have more than a long shot chance to become the majority party. The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas alone is seen as likely to result in a pickup of 4 or 5 seats for the GOP, further widening the gap that the Demos would have to narrow. Here is one Republican's assessment of which races should be competitive in the House. More attention has been given to the Senate where the margin is much narrower, and more Demos are daring to hope for majority status.

The conventional wisdom may well turn out to be true, but here is my contrarian speculation that the House is actually likelier to change hands than the Senate. I will grant that this is partly wishful thinking on my part, as a majority switch in the House stands to create more political thunder than a switch in the Senate where greater moderation on both sides of the aisle tends to dampen the influence of the majority, especially when it's a slim one. Some may argue that the Senate is more important due to its role in confirming appointments, but it's the House where continuous control by Republicans since 1995 has resulted in partisan entrenchment and the establishment of rules creating institutional barriers to change rivaling those which the Democrats had built up after forty years of control of that body prior to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Frankly our nation would be well served by at least one switch in party control per decade to avoid that type of petty partisanship.

My inclination to believe a Democratic surprise may be in the works stems from the tide of unabashedly liberal activism, and the rising concerns of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, both of which have sprung up in reaction to the Bush administration's four-headed approach to governing by warmongering, rights abatement, deficit spending, and cultural divisiveness. This isn't to suggest that I don't believe the polls that show a closely split and increasingly polarized electorate, nor that I believe the Republican base isn't also going to vote in record numbers. But among the many constituencies which are NOT in either party's base, I suggest that those who are inclined to oppose Bush will be voting at a substantially higher rate than those inclined to support him. This is why the polls may be "lying".

While events could yet conspire for things not to turn out that way, this potential differential in who shows up in November could translate into both an unexpected landslide for Kerry, and longer coattails than have been seen in years. The reason I think the coattails might be more noticeable in the House than the Senate is largely regional. Only one-third of all Senate seats are up for a vote, and many of the closer races are for southern seats currently occupied by Democrats. The stronger cultural conservatism in the South is likely to mitigate my suggested turnout differential there, and the loss of just two or three of those Senate seats is likely to be insurmountable. In contrast, as always, every seat in the House is up for re-election, and a motivated large anti-Bush turnout could produce more surprises in House races previously not believed to be in play.

As a partisan myself, I am especially anxious to see the Democratic Leadership put more resources than they might otherwise be inclined to into House races which have historically gone Republican with percentages in the high 50s and even low 60s, especially outside of the South. One strategic arm of the Democratic establishment, the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC) seemed to share my take on the unique opportunity of 2004 back in their September 2003 Board Memo:

As President Bush’s ratings continue to slip, and the Republicans continue to be wrong on the issues that matter most to people, Democratic races for the US House and Senate have become even more competitive. Principally because of 2002 redistricting there are a smaller number of competitive US House races. While it will be a truly difficult challenge to overcome a 22-seat GOP advantage in the House, a weakened Bush and discredited GOP has the potential of putting many more House seats “in play” in 2004. It is possible that by this time next year there will be significantly more competitive House races and the Democrat’s prospects of recapturing control of Congress will be much brighter.

But in their more recent winter newsletter, they backed substantially away from such optimism, only barely mentioning that:

In addition there is a strong chance Democrats will be able to pick up a couple of seats in the House of Representatives.

In contrast, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, more of a fund-raising organization dedicated to winning seats in Congress, at least officially, seems to remain more hopeful. Personally I wish that Tom DeLay could become the sort of political lightning rod for the left, that Ted Kennedy and Hillary have become for the right. "Demote DeLay" could become the generic "vote for your local Democrat for Congress" yard sign. Alas it would be lost on the average voter outside of DeLay's own district, who's not inclined to think of their vote as having anything to do with majority control of Congress.

Control of the House by the Democrats, should my November surprise actually occur, is likely to be short-lived however. If accompanied by a Kerry Presidency, the motivated electorate I'm hypothesizing to show up to turn out Bush will fall back to their usual habits in two years, and the redistricting to favor the party currently in power will not have changed, meaning the GOP would retake most of the seats they lose this time around. Even so, an interruption to a Republican majority, should be celebrated by moderates everywhere, as it should substantially quell the activist right-wing freight train being led by Hastert and DeLay.

As far as my personal druthers are concerned, I actually am hoping for my prediction not only in the House but in the Senate as well, since I see the advantage of some of the moderate Republican leadership in that body tempering possible excesses of what would otherwise be one-party control across the board. This in spite of the fact that I test to the left of Kucinich in this on-line measurement of one's political compass, though I remain very skeptical of that result.