Thank you GOP
Posted on 03/17/2005 12:23:49 PM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Thursday to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts from the $2.6 trillion budget for next year, killing the heart of the plan's deficit reduction and dealing an embarrassing setback to President Bush and Republican leaders.
The amendment, whose chief sponsor was moderate Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., was approved 52-48 after days of heavy lobbying by both sides. It was widely seen as a test of the GOP-run Congress' taste for making even moderate reductions in popular benefit programs that consume two-thirds of the budget and are growing rapidly, even at a time of record federal deficits.
The Medicaid cuts could still be revived when the House and Senate try writing a compromise budget next month. The more conservative House was voting Thursday on a similar budget that would make way for up to $20 billion in Medicaid savings.
The budget sets overall tax and spending targets to guide Congress as it writes bills later in the year that make actual changes in programs and tax laws.
Leading SchoolsUniversityof PhoenixWaldenUniversityKaplanEllisUndergradDevryOnlineJonesInternationalKWUKellerGrad School of Management Choose a programBusinessMBAComputers& ITHealth& MedicineEducationEngineeringCriminalJusticeAssociatesDegreesCanadianResidents
By their vote, senators deleted the $14 billion in five-year reductions that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., included in his fiscal outline.
That would be a 1 percent reduction from the $1.12 trillion the federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled is expected to spend in federal funds during that period. Instead, a commission would be appointed to study the program for a year.
"This one cries for the most care" in making a decision, said Smith, whose amendment was co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "Because it involves the halt, the lame, the poor, the blind, the needy, those who have no recourse."
Gregg called claims that Medicaid cuts would hurt people "absurd, misleading" and "just scare tactics."
With elections next year, Gregg predicted the vote meant there would be no serious effort to squeeze savings from benefit programs for many years. And he launched what seemed almost like a personal criticism at Smith for an amendment he said would "gut the only thing in this budget" that would force fiscal discipline.
"And it's being done by Republicans," Gregg said. "You just have to ask yourself, how they get up in the morning and look in the mirror?"
Joining Smith were all 44 Democrats, independent James Jefforts of Vermont and GOP Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Following Bush's lead, the Senate Republicans made the proposed Medicaid reductions the keystone of their plan to save $32 billion from benefit programs over the next five years. Overall, such programs are the biggest and fastest growing part of the budget, and Republicans have targeted them in an effort to slowly reduce record federal deficits.
The showdown occurred as the House and Senate moved toward completing similar $2.6 trillion budgets for 2006.
House GOP leaders cleared the last hurdle to final passage by striking a deal with conservatives to allow procedural votes on whether to kill spending bills that exceed budget limits.
Generally following the approach Bush charted in his budget last month, both chambers' fiscal outlines would cut a wide range of domestic programs in an effort to reduce slowly deficits that soared to a record $412 billion last year. Defense and domestic anti-terrorism programs would get increased funds.
In addition, Bush wants five-year tax cuts totaling $100 billion. The House budget makes room for $106 billion in tax cuts, the more moderate Senate $70 billion.
By 50-50 - a vote shy of the majority needed - Democrats and moderate Republicans narrowly lost an effort Wednesday to require any new tax cuts be paid for with revenue increases or spending reductions. Though GOP leaders prevailed in defending one of Bush's top priorities, the vote showed how tenuous Senate support is for a fresh round of tax cuts.
For the first time since 1997, the House and Senate both want to carve savings out of benefit programs, which consume nearly two-thirds of the federal budget and are growing rapidly. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest, but neither Social Security or Medicare are on the chopping block this year.
Overall, these programs are projected to spend $7.7 trillion over the next five years. By law, they pay benefits to anyone who qualifies and cover inflation and growing numbers of recipients, so their spending increases automatically every year.
Bush proposed saving $51 billion from benefit programs over the next five years, including from Medicaid, farm aid, student loans and fees on employers to support the fiscally ailing federal agency that backs private pension plans. The House budget calls for $69 billion in savings, the Senate's $32 billion.
not much hope for us (taxpayers) either *sigh*
Dammit that's two days in a row for DeWhiner.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
-Ronald Reagan
Let's throw out these Senate Rhinos!
I agree 100% with them. Medicaid, of all the entitlement programs, this one helps the most needy. The ones that government really does have a God given responsibility to care for.
I'm glad to see these cuts eliminated, until someone explains why the cuts make sense and how sufficient care for the needy will be accomplished.
And since Medicaid pays benefits according to a defined plan, does a budget cut reduce future payments at all? Or did the budget include rule changes that would actually affect the Medicaid program?
I agree with you. Medicaid is also the only one of the big 3 entitlement programs that is means tested. It's truly for the poor and destitute, those who have nowhere else to turn (and illegals, which is another problem altogether).
I bet a lot of money would be saved if SS and Medicare were means tested.
I agree.
However SS is really a forced savings/disability insurance plan with a defined benefit program which generates a very low and perhaps negative returns for most people. But it should be run as a forced savings program instead of a pyramid scheme. And the components should be separated and reported separately and managed accordingly.
Changing it, wouldn't be a real change in any sense, but it would change the focus from are there enough funds to pay benefits to "what are the funds invested in?" and "Is US Treasury Debt a sound investment?"
Medicare already charges premiums, but those could be means tested and a progressive rate charged.
I agree that SS should be run as a forced savings program and I look forward to the day when that happens.
As for Medicare, yes premiums are charged and a lot of things aren't covered. But a lot of people on Medicare get around it by signing up with HMOs like "Keystone 65" or "Aetna Golden Medicare". People still pay their little part B premium, but now they don't have to pay nearly as much for their care as they would if they were just on straight Medicare.
However, the government still foots the bill.
All Presidents get their pet projects approved, unless you have a Congress of the opposite party willing to fight the President tooth and nail. We all knew that a Republican Congress will not be able to take on a Republican President. Bush went on a spending binge with his education spending and prescription drug bill. It is easy and proper to blame Bush. Hey, he could always veto the budget if he doesn't like it, right.
Remember how excited everyone was when we retained both the House and the Senate? When President Bush proposed the cuts?
Big government is here to stay.
Anyone who can afford $50/day for heroin can afford medicine.
Medicaid is not for grannies.
That's Medicare.
Medicaid is welfare.
Don't forget the drug addicts.
Why the "cuts" (they aren't cuts, of course) make sense: Productive people will not work to support the unproductive at the same level that their families are supported. Never worked, never will. Medicaid now is bankrupting the mainstream health sector, because they require certain types of care to be delivered but don't pay the cost of doing so.
How sufficient care for the needy will be accomplished: First, decide how much to spend. Re-open the county hospitals and health clinics on a fixed budget. When the money's gone, the care stops until it's refunded. Allow individuals to buy services with their own money.
You might be surprised. A people that spend $50 billion a year on illegal drugs can afford a lot of medical care.
Now, you will have to deal with the fact that a lot of the money that now goes to illegal activities won't get spent on medicine-does that mean that YOU should pay, instead?
That's it. The definition of a neocon.
Kiss his chances of higer office goodbye.
Well, Thank Gawd! I can hardly wait for Monday when I put on the old yoke again and continue to support those 6.3 Grannies I'm already supporting with my tax dollars.
H#ll! Throw another one on my back for good measure! I still have a few good years left in me until I'm totally broke.
Actually, I'm being rather sarcastic, but it would really, really help if my retired Dad wouldn't leave messages on my answering machine saying, "Nothing to do, and all day to do it. And on your dime, Honey!" Click.
Well guess what, George(I lost my veto pen)Bush beat her to it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.