David Brooks has a lyrical but vague and pretty misleading column about the entitlement crisis today, and in a feat of rhetorical flexibility connects it to SCHIP.

Two problems: as Dean Baker says, the bottom line of the entitlement crisis is health care inefficiency. There is no legitimate centrist "share the sacrifice" position, and it has nothing to do with Social Security. Even CBO director and former Hamilton Project leader Peter Orszag agrees with Baker on the cause of the problem!

And SCHIP will have no discernible impact on the long-term fiscal picture. It's $7 billion a year, which is 0.2 percent of the annual budget. And it is fully paid for.

Brook's point about the regressivity of the tobacco tax is valid. But if you look at the package as a whole, as the conservative Tax Foundation did, it's progressive.

The President has signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (summary)!

The act gradually raises the maximum Pell Grant, which helps low-income students pay for college, to $5,400 by 2012, from $4,050 in 2006. And it cuts interest rates in half for subsidized college loans over the next five years. The nearly $20 billion in new funding is all paid for without tax increases, because the bill cracks down on excessive subsidies to the student loan industry.

The SCHIP expansion just got cloture (meaning it can't be filibustered and will get an up or down vote) on 69-30 vote (roll call). That's a veto proof majority! The vote on passage should be coming up shortly.

Plus, get this (emph. mine):

However, Democrats -- and their Republican allies on the issue -- made clear Bush's veto will not be the last word on the measure. They said they will keep coming back to the bill every six weeks to three months until either the White House relents or Republican opposition collapses.

"This fight will not end this week or next. If the president refuses to sign the bill, if he says, with a veto, 'I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care,' this legislation will haunt him again and again and again," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Is this a sign of things to come on the war funding and social spending bills?

The Senate will vote on the SCHIP bill probably in a matter of hours- don't forget to call/email your Senator.

Donny Shaw at the invaluable OpenCongress.org had an interesting interpretation of the SCHIP vote in the House:

When the Democrats took over Congress in January, they passed new, hardcore budgeting rules known as PAYGO that require them to account for any spending increase by creating an equal increase in revenue elsewhere. With SCHIP, their fiscal heroism proved bittersweet; the revenue increase proposal they agreed upon ended up costing congressional Democrats the critical Republican votes they needed to get their proposal enacted.

Under the the proposal, the expansion would be funded entirely by a 61-cent per pack increase in the tobacco tax. The tobacco industry didn't like this plan and they showed it by flexing their lobbying muscles with representatives from the tobacco states (North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee). In the end, only one of the 33 Republican tobacco-state representatives voted for the bill. That's a support rate of only 3 percent, significantly lower than overall House Republican support rate, which was 22 percent. With about 15 other "nay"-voting representatives who could be considered persuadable "aye" votes -- the 6 Democrats who opposed it, the 1 who voted "present," and the 8 who didn't vote -- even a modest improvement in the rate of tobacco-state-republican support could have made all the difference with this bill.

That's certainly possible. But an even more plausible explanation for the regionally divided vote is the old red state-blue state dyanamic. Red-state Republicans are generally more conservative than their blue-state counterparts, who also represent more vulnerable districts. If you just look at red-state Republicans, as opposed to tobacco state Republicans, I imagine the voting ratio would be pretty similar. That's probably the more obvious explanation, but that doesn't mean it's less true.

Plus, only three of the 8 Democrats who voted against the expansion came from tobacco states. And some Democrats from tobacco states voted for the bill, including Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) and Jim Cooper (D-TN).

And let's accept that the tobacco tax swung some votes. But what would the votes have looked like if a) it hadn't been paid for or b) it was paid for with a different tax increase or spending cut? Recall that the tobacco tax was included at the initial suggestion of Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) as pay-for that'd be acceptable to moderate Republicans.

I wouldn't rule out Shaw's explanation, but more than a vote count is necessary to make it compelling.

FactCheck.Org has a good rundown of the half-truths, dissembling, gaffes, disingenuous remarks and false claims (AKA lies) by the anti-SCHIP legions.

Lying is what you do when you have a weak argument. However, it can be pretty effective, as we all know, when nobody checks you.

For more, see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities fact check, and the Democrat's fact check. Yeah, there's been a lot of dissembling.

President "Heckuva job, Brownie" Bush has cast himself as the defender of the poor against the greedy working class, which doesn't deserve help with their health insurance bills. I don't see how else you read statements like this.

Also, SCHIP supporters are now driving home the point that the expansion is for mostly low-income children. Aren't they trying to show that they aren't too concerned with the undeserving poor? If I were them I'd say "Yes, the SCHIP expansion isn't just for poor families. It's for low-income and middle-class families that are having trouble getting health care for their kids. What's wrong with that?" After all, it's a program for children in families whose incomes are too high qualify them for Medicaid. That seems to be one of the reasons it's so popular.

Anyway, I don't want to sweat the small stuff- it's great that Congress will pass something, even if it will be vetoed, and I'm pretty confident that we can override it. But do we always have to be so defensive when Bush goes on the attack?

See the press release, with policy details, on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's webpage.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, President Bush reiterated his veto threat for any SCHIP expansion today. His objection now is that:

"I want...the Congress to be focused on making sure poor children get the health insurance they were promised. Instead, Congress has made a decision to expand [SCHIP] eligibility up to $80,000."

But Congress has never made that decision. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA):

"[The President's] understanding of our bill is wrong, and I would urge the president to reconsider his veto message based upon the bill we might pass, not something that some staffer has told him wrongly about our bill."

Indeed, the President could achieve his stated goal of making sure poor children get health insurance they've been promised if he would just, you know, sign the SCHIP expansion that passes. Because 85 percent of the new kids who'll be on it already qualify for SCHIP. There just isn't enough money to sign them up now. See the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities SCHIP coverage for more.

The National Women's Law Center is getting ready to send a letter to Congress demanding a reversal in the 2006 cuts to federal child support programs. OMB Watch has signed on- and you can sign on your organization on this website. The deadline for sign-ons is this Friday.

Is the federal fiscal responsibility glass half-full or half-empty? Let's look first today at the part of the glass that is half full -- something fresh and new. After all, when was the last time the administration has done anything, the Treasury Secretary has said anything, or Congress has considered anything comprehensively addressing the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances?

From out of nowhere today comes a proposal by Senate Budget Committee Chair and Ranking Member Kent Conrad (N-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) to create a task force to do something about it, dang it. Well, not do something, just, well, here are the operative verbs:

The task force will review all aspects of the current and long-term financial condition of the federal government. It will identify factors that jeopardize the government's long-term fiscal balance, or that create a gap between expected federal revenues and spending. It will analyze all potential solutions, and make legislative recommendations to Congress and the President on how to substantially improve the long-term fiscal balance in a report due December 9, 2008.

To recommend something, this is.

Since this sounds easy enough, "at least three-quarters of the task force... must agree to the [recommendations] before the report can be submitted."

And since Congress will no doubt find the recomenndations a no-brainer, "Final passage of the bill requires a supermajority in each chamber — three-fifths of the Senate and three-fifths of the House."

Then it goes to the President about a month before he leaves office, when he will truly be in a position to cast partisanship aside, consider his legacy, and do the right think for the national and its fiscal future. At last.

Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Info and resources regarding the proposal below.

• Conrad/Gregg Press Release
• Bipartisan Task Force Fact Sheet

Rave reviews:

• Comments By David M. Walker, Comptroller General Of The United States
• Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget
• The Concord Coalition

We here at the BudgetBlog would like to know what you think of our blog. Please take a moment to fill this short reader survey and give us your thoughts.

1-866-544-7573. That's the toll-free number you can call to urge your representatives in Congress to pass an expansion of SCHIP and Medicare reforms (for more on the House and Senate versions of the bill, read this Watcher article).

Negotiations over those bills have stalled, and it's vital that Congress hear that they need to pass the most progressive expansion ppossible before the program's authorization expires on September 30th.

CQ (subscription) reports that negotiations over SCHIP between the Houe and Senate have stalled.

Lawmakers left the Capitol on Wednesday in a stalemate over children's health insurance, increasing the likelihood of a short-term extension of the program's funding.

Despite numerous meetings and continued discussions over the past two days, House and Senate leaders were unable to resolve the two biggest points of contention between a House bill (HR 3162) renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and a Senate version (HR 976): how much to spend on the program and whether to include provisions on Medicare.

Senators blamed House Democratic leaders, who have refused to concede that their bill cannot pass the Senate. It would increase spending on SCHIP by about $47 billion over five years, to $72 billion, and includes extensive Medicare changes.

Senate Republicans say they will oppose any final bill that greatly exceeds the spending level their chamber has passed — $60 billion over five years, a $35 billion increase — or includes cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular, GOP-championed program in which insurers instead of the government provide health coverage to seniors. The House bill would do both.

The Washington Monthly has two interesting articles on how to reduce the cost of health care- and at the same time, expand coverage and improve quality. Proof once again that there are humane and just ways to deal with the long-term fiscal gap.

Jason Furman, of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, testified to Congress on the real "dynamic" affect of the regressive Bush tax cuts- they'll be a net loss for three-quarters of all taxpayers, who'll be burdened with paying them off in taxes and benefit cuts over the long haul. In other words, tax cuts don't pay for themselves- people do.

Prof. Larry Bartels's book on political and economic inequality- definitely worth a reading/skimming for anyone interested in the subject (on the off chance that people care, I've continued the blog series on inequality and public opinion in this week's Watcher, coming out later today. This doesn't rule out the possibility of more posting, but I'm pretty spent on the subject).

A couple weeks ago, the Bush Administration, via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) promulgated new rules affecting eligibility requirements to which states must adhere in the administration of their SCHIP programs. On Friday, New York became the first state to be denied an exemption.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — The Bush administration on Friday rejected a request from New York State to expand its children's health insurance program to cover 70,000 more uninsured youngsters, including some from middle-income families.

The ruling was the first application of a restrictive new White House policy that has drawn ferocious criticism from Democrats since it was announced last month. New York wanted to expand its program to cover children in families with incomes up to four times as much as the federal poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The state's current limit is 250 percent of the poverty level.

The new rules contain two provisions that are, well, just plain mean.

The first new rule mandates that at least 95% of all eligible children living in families earning below 200% of the poverty line must be enrolled in the state's SCHIP program before the state can enroll children children living in families earning more than 200% of the poverty line. So far, exactly zero states have met this requirement. This pretty much limits states to enrolling only children living in families earning below the 200% threshold.

The second rule is completely mendacious. It says that before a child living in family earning more than 250% of the poverty line must be without health insurance for an entire year before that child is eligible for SCHIP coverage. Yes, you read that right. President Bush wants children to go at least a year without health insurance.

David Brooks in the NYT today promotes Stuart Butler's plan for reforming the health insurance system. Skepticism is advised, on political grounds.

The principle political obstacle holding back an efficient and fair benefit system is public fragmentation. Some of us get most benefits from the government- some of us get them from the private sector (with help from the government that often goes unrecognized). And most people don't want to lose what they have, even if it might be for a better deal later on.

This system is both unequal and inefficient. It creates smaller risk pools and prevents effective management of a dysfunctional health market. It distributes bigger benefits to higher paid workers, and fewer to low-paid workers. An increasing number of people are being left out of the system entirely.

But what Butler and Brooks have in mind is a further fragmentation of the public. They envision a system of many small "insurance exchanges" managed by different private social groups. While the proposal might have merits, it would serve to divide up the benefit system even further, and hinder reform later on. One can easily imagine that some exchanges will offer better benefits than others- that some people will like the system, and some won't- but that the people who like the system will defend it and keep anything better from taking shape, just like what we have today.

It might be refreshing to see conservatives recognize and meet the need for an expanded benefit system, and one where the public is playing a larger role than handing out tax breaks. But in the long-term, proposals like theirs will only make the benefit system more unequal and inefficient (a cynic might say that was the plan all along). What's really needed is a plan to move us away, in incremental steps, from a decentralized system and fragmented public.

(For more on this dynamic, check out the book The Divided Welfare State)

CongressDaily (subscription required) reports that the President will sign the Higher Education Access Act of 2007- a revenue-neutral bill that will give more help to students to pay for college.

The package, which was agreed upon by a conference committee Wednesday and is expected to clear both houses by end of the week, calls for increasing the maximum Pell Grant award from the current $4,300 to $5,400 over five years and reducing interest rates from the existing 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. In other loan relief measures, the bill would cap repayments to 15 percent of disposable income and provide loan forgiveness after 10 years to military personnel and a range of other public service occupations such as prosecutors, public defenders, nurses and librarians.

The measure passed 78-18 in the Senate and 273-149 in the House. President Bush had said he opposed it, but did not issue a veto threat.