Thursday, February 08, 2007

Washington Politics: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good: Democrats announced they would block President Bush’s efforts to cut the budget of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In the 2007 budget proposal, President Bush reduced federal funding for Medicaid and SCHIP by a net of $12 billion in 2006 through 2010 (CBPP). This action directly contradicts President Bush’s promise to fully fund SCHIP at the 2004 Republican National Convention where he said:
America’s children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government’s health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need. (Families USA)

The program, created by the Clinton administration (also the primary focus Sen. Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign thus far), is designed to provide health insurance to low and middle income families that cannot afford private health insurance and do not qualify for Medicaid. As a result of the cuts, the program will lower the income threshold used to determine which kids qualify; thereby, terminating health insurance for hundreds of thousands of children. Furthermore, Gov. Jim Doyle’s recent proposal to increase enrollment in the SCHIP might be threatened (Doyle).

Maybe I should classify this situation as ‘ugly.’ However, Congressional Democrats came to the rescue, vowing to alter the allocation of funds. In a letter to the President, Speak Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader wrote:
[W]e respectfully request that you not forget the millions of low-income Americans who are insured under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). We ask that you submit a separate spending proposal to cover shortfalls in SCHIP for Fiscal Year 2007 which have been estimated to be $745 million…SCHIP has become a vital part of our safety net, providing health care coverage to millions of Americans who otherwise would be uninsured. Including funds to address fully the looming SCHIP shortfall would assure that states can continue to provide this important coverage while we work to address the longer-term success of the program. (Reid)


The Bad: When Democrats regained control of congress, they vowed to enact a 5-day work week in an attempt to improve the image of the previous do nothing Congress which worked a total of 103 days (Washington Post). Although Congress has yet to work a 5-day week – federal holidays (MLK) and the BCS championship game got in the way – some in Congress have already started to complain. Some members of Congress want a full week off for every three weeks of work (No source, reported on February 7, on CNN’s The Situation Room). When asked several months ago about the work habits of Congress, American Enterprise Institute’s Congressional scholar, Norman Ornstein said:
It's not too much to ask Congress to commit to spending at least half the year -- 26 weeks -- working full time, five days a week, thus providing at least a measure of the deliberation and attention to detail that are so lacking now…Congress has a fundamental responsibility to make decent laws and see to it that those laws work well.
He later remarked that the current schedule does not allow that. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)


The Ugly: An agency near and dear to my heart, the Centers for Disease Control, received a 9% budget cut, or $6.9 billion (NYT). Considering the increased potential of bioterrorism, the potential bird flu pandemic, and Indonesia’s recent decision to stop sharing bird flu virus samples with the World Health Organization (Indonesia is usually the epicenter of flu outbreaks, and currently the most virulent strains of the bird flu virus reside there), this cut may be disastrous in the future (Chicago Tribune). The health care foundation, California Healthline, chronicled some of the reductions and increases in the 2007 budget. While the cut to the CDC’s budget is disheartening, especially since I hope to work there some day, President Bush did increase funds for the National Institute of Health (whom I did some research for), the FDA, and abstinence-only education programs – because studies have ubiquitously shown they work. He did ask for $120 million to address a future flu pandemic. However, according to California Healthline, “some public health advocates say the budget provides inadequate funding for disease tracking and response.”

No comments: