White House won't let adviser testify on Medicare drug costs

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/8323159.htm ^ | Wed, Mar. 31, 2004 | TONY PUGH

[poolstick]

White House won't let adviser testify on Medicare drug costs

Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - Citing executive privilege, the White House refused to allow President Bush's chief health-policy adviser, Douglas Badger, to testify Thursday before the House Ways and Means Committee about early administration estimates that the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be far more costly than many lawmakers believed when they voted for it.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the decision not to let Badger testify was justified by the longstanding principle that exempts assistants to the president from testifying before Congress.

Executive privilege, while not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as necessary to, as Duffy put it, "preserve the White House's ability to get the best information possible and to speak candidly."

Until Bush yielded on Tuesday, his administration used the same argument to keep National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice from testifying publicly before the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Several Ways and Means Committee members wanted to know whether Badger suppressed or passed on to senior Bush administration officials figures he obtained in early June indicating that the drug benefit might cost more than $500 billion in its first 10 years.

When lawmakers narrowly passed the measure in November, many relied on a $395 billion Congressional Budget Office estimate. Knight Ridder reported on March 11 that former Medicare administrator Thomas Scully threatened to fire his chief actuary, Richard Foster, if Foster shared the far higher estimate with members of Congress.

The alleged firing threat, which Scully contends was not serious, sparked sharp bipartisan criticism from lawmakers, editorial writers and interest groups, as did the administration's effort to keep the higher cost figure out of the congressional debate. Lawmakers in prior years had free access to Foster's estimates.

In testimony last week before the Ways and Means Committee, Foster said that Badger, Scully and other members of the Bush administration received his June estimate that the program might cost $511 billion.

But Foster said he didn't know whether those estimates were shared with higher-ups in the White House - perhaps even with Bush, who lobbied hard for the bill.

[poolstick]

most conservative are mad on this one

[inquest]

Citing executive privilege, the White House refused to allow President Bush's chief health-policy adviser, Douglas Badger, to testify Thursday before the House Ways and Means Committee about early administration estimates that the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be far more costly than many lawmakers believed when they voted for it.

"Executive privilege"? Oh yeah, real national security implications with this issue. Hafta keep it under wraps.

[Asclepius]

... most conservative are mad on this one ...

Are we? I beg to differ. The White House could sequester every one its advisors in tombs fit for Pharoahs from now until the sun goes supernova and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Hell, our beloved president could order an artillery strike on capital hill and I would not shed a bitter tear unless the shockwave caused me to spill my latte in my lap.

[Cold Heat]

This is another attempt by dems to make it look like the white house lied to get some legislation passed.

It is ridiculous and a result of Clinton holdovers comming out in force to do everything they can to get rid of Bush.

[graf008]

Depends on the type of conservative you are....I am quite angry on this since we were sold a bad bill of goods - when the costs where higher then we wanted, we were mislead.

Many good Republican leaders would not have voted for this bill had they known the cost. The Admin should at least apologize.

On the other hand, I do understand the need to not develop exceptions to executive privilege - I fear the Admin, by caving into public pressure re: Dr. Rice, has just put the first hole in the zeppelin called "Executive Privilege"

[graf008]

I wouldn't say they lied...any more than past admins have lied on pending legislation. But this is suppossed to be a conservative, limited-government admin. We are the party of fiscal responsibility - and the Republican leadership that is disappointed with the admin on this (and thus allowed the hearings) is echoing this trait.

[breakem]

wh refuses to let some one testify or to provide inof..................same song different band.

[mrsmith]

They have to use the CBO estimate anyway.

The congress is required by it's own rules not to use the White House estimates- the ones they are complaining about not getting.

Maybe most conservative don't realize that. I couldn't say, I assume there are some facts that even most conservatives are not aware of.

[gollymolly]

Your RIGHT. We are our democrating the democrats. Where do we go politically if we want reduced real spending and smaller government. It is like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where everyone in town is replaced by a body that emeges from a pod placed underneath their bed while the replaced person sleeps. All around us in our conservative movement ,in deed ever many of our Freeper brothers and sisters have gone to sleep and been replaced by pods.

[Cold Heat]

If you are following this issue, you would know that the difference in the two forcasts have to do with estimates of the numbers of people participating in the program and also on the savings over time on catastrophic care.

The lower figure anticipates savings and the higher does not.

The lower figure pegs a 87% participation and the higher a 94 or there abouts.

These are all valid.

It is the concensus that neither estimate is correct, and are what they are.

Estimates.

The difference in dollars only accounts for some fraction of a percent of the total dollars spent and really is only a political spat that is being shoveled by the dems.

I believe that the actual cost will be lower than both estimates. They are both very conservative estimates and the higher one is way too conservative.

It actually pegs participation in the drug program at a higher percentage than part B is now.

This seems to me to be way too high.

[graf008]

I was not aware of this procedural rule. Do you you evidence to back this up?

[Cold Heat]

Many good Republican leaders would not have voted for this bill had they known the cost. The Admin should at least apologize.

Word is that they were aware of both estimates. The CBO is the only one they can argue, by law and house rules.

The ones who claim no knowledge are crying wolf.

[Tamzee]

Newt Gingrich: Conservatives Should Vote 'Yes' on Medicare

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1025610/posts

[graf008]

Ahh...I was misinformed...thanks for clearing that up.

It does seem like our Congress and Admin is burning money like there is no tomorrow...but hopefully the economy will continue its recovery, tax receipts will go up (due to great income) and cries of budget deficits will disappear.

[mrsmith]

http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M03/D19/200403191111DOWJONESDJONLINE000593.html
"McClellan added that under congress's budget rules, it wouldn't have made any difference if Foster had a higher cost estimate for the bill.

"The bottom line is that the CBO estimate is the only one that matters. The CBO is the official scorekeeper and congress is required by law to use the CBO estimate," McClellan said."

No one ever refuted him. I've heard it mentioned on other matters that congress has to use CBO estimates. Makes sense when you think about it. They have to agree on a number to use in the budget and CBO is the guys who come up with it.

[Cold Heat]

There was a big flap some years ago over varied estimates about the deficit.

The White House had one and the CBO another.

The democrats decided to go with the CBO estimate and it has remained so ever since.

Too much time was being used argueing the different estimates and it was deemed better to use CBO.

[graf008]

Thanks - do you know what law it actually is, per chance?

[graf008]

Thanks - do you know what law it actually is, per chance?

Is it required to go with CBO on all? Is it kinda like the situation where the judge asks the jury to ignore a defendents confession on the stand to the murder - kinda hard if the fact is out there and what are the repurcussions if you use that evidence.....

[Cold Heat]

It does seem like our Congress and Admin is burning money like there is no tomorrow...but hopefully the economy will continue its recovery, tax receipts will go up (due to great income) and cries of budget deficits will disappear

Yes, and Bush has not offered anymore spending bills.

On the same subject, one must take into account that repubs are not, as a group, very conservative as the definition states, but as so much more conservative than the democrats.

This drug legislation was coming regardless of party, because it was demanded by AARP.

The repub version was about half the price of the dems or less, depending on what estimate you want to use.

This was gonna happen. That was for sure.