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.
I figured that was your point, but the examples you used are all legitimate government responsibilities.
We can probably find areas where we can agree that government doesn't have a legitimate role, and doesn't need as much bureacracy as they have. But so far you haven't provided an example.
And I respectfully dissagree with Mr. Greenspan.
I assume that you are talking about former soldiers, i.e. the veterans. If that is so, then NO the government doesn't have a responsibility to take care of all of them.
The government does have a responsibility to take care of those veterans who have a service connected disability, and the government does have a responsibility to take care of those who served at least 20 years and have retired.
That's where the responsibility ends. But there are those, like the American Legion, VFW and other lobbying groups who have convinced the politicians that they will lose votes unless they take care of all veterans.
And, yes, I am a veteran (Korea 1952-53) and no, I am not getting health care from the VA. Nor do I want my fellow taxpayers to provide it for me.
We are in agreement there.
Four years in the military does not warrant a lifetime of medical care, unless the care is for an injury received while in the military.
I agree that there are no end of groups that want special treatment and benefits from the government.
But government does have a responsibility to care for the truly disabled, and indigent. You can argue about it being a federal or state responsibility, but the responsibility remains, none the less.
And sadly, that's the only area where I see our Republicans trying to make a cut. And that's just wrong!
Why? Because establishing a rapport with a doctor and making and keeping appointments is just too difficult. Much easier to just stroll into an emergency room whenever you feel like it. The last time I was in the emergency room ( for severe chest pains one year after a major heart attack) the woman next to me told me she came in because she had a cold. A cold! I asked her what she thought the hospital was going to do for her. Had there been a cure for the common cold that I missed??
So what if it costs $600 just to walk through the doors? They are not paying for it - we are!
Until this problem is solved - Medicaid costs will just continue to spiral out of control.
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.