Patterico's Pontifications

8/1/2007

When Did Ron Brownstein Become a Mouth Organ for the Dem. Party?

Filed under: Current Events,Dog Trainer,General,Government,Media Bias — WLS @ 6:43 pm



[Posted by WLS]

His column today is an embarrassment for a guy who once enjoyed journalistic credentials.

Lets start with the Headline — I know he didn’t write it, but it matches perfectly with his theme:

“Stealing Healthcare from Babies”

Now, lets begin with his substance:

Congress is moving responsibly to remove a blot on the nation: the 8 million children without health insurance. It is doing so by expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, a state-federal partnership that the Republican Congress and President Clinton created in 1997 to cover kids in working-poor families.

You can read Brownstein’s entire column and not come across a critical fact raised by the opponents of the planned expansion of SCHIP — that more than half the “covered kids in working-poor families” are actually adults.

Let’s compare the “analysis” employed by Brownstein in his piece with another article on the subject from Robert Robb in the Arizona Republic today.

Brownstein:

Under the bipartisan Senate bill, Washington would spend about $56 billion over the next five years to cover almost half of the nation’s uninsured children. Over the same period, the Medicare entitlement that Bush signed (after more than four-fifths of House and Senate Republicans voted for it) will cost nearly $330 billion.

Robb:

SCHIP was intended to provide federal subsidies to insure children up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or a family income of about $40,000 a year. The program expires this year and needs to be reauthorized.

No one opposes reauthorization for its intended purpose. The Bush administration has proposed reauthorization for this targeted population with an extra $5 billion in funding over the next five years, over the current base of $25 billion.

Brownstein:

Bush’s argument that the SCHIP changes will unacceptably “crowd out” private insurance is misleading in another respect. It’s true, as Bush charges, that if the program is expanded, some eligible families would shift their children into it from private coverage, hoping to save money or improve care. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that children making such a switch would account for about one-third of the 6 million kids expected to enroll in the expanded SCHIP program under the Senate plan, and hence one-third of the added cost.

Robb:

The problem is that SCHIP has expanded beyond its original scope, as so often happens with federal programs. In the early years, many states couldn’t use all their SCHIP money, so the feds permitted excess funds to be used by other states to extend coverage to children beyond 200 percent of the poverty level and even adults.

In Arizona, the SCHIP plan is called KidsCare. A Government Accountability Office study found, however, that 56 percent of the people enrolled in “KidsCare” were actually adults.

Fifteen states now provide SCHIP coverage for children above 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 14 states cover adults.

Brownstein:

Few of the lower-income working families that rely on this program have the time to follow this week’s legislative struggle, much less analyze how it serves the White House’s apparent strategy of embroiling congressional Democrats in unrelenting conflicts with Bush that alienate swing voters. In that political skirmishing, these families have been reduced to collateral damage. They deserve something better from a president who once called himself a “compassionate conservative.”

Robb:

Congressional Democrats propose not only to fund these existing expanded programs but provide enough funding for other states to substantially expand eligibility, as well. In all, Democrats are proposing to more than double SCHIP funding, allowing universal coverage up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, as Gov. Janet Napolitano has proposed for Arizona.

That would provide coverage up to a family income of about $60,000 a year. Since the median family income in the United States is just over $46,000, this reaches well into the middle class.

To pay for the SCHIP expansion, Democrats are proposing to raise tobacco taxes by up to 61 cents a pack. Tobacco taxes are highly regressive. So, basically, Democrats are proposing to tax the poor to pay for the health care of the middle class.

At the end of the rhetoric, however, congressional Democrats aren’t proposing to reauthorize a program to insure low-income children. Instead, they are proposing a massive expansion of subsidized health care to middle-class families, funded by a large increase in heavily regressive tobacco taxes.

So, in Brownstein/LAT world, not subsidizing the health insurance costs of middle-class families — incomes at 300% of the federal poverty level — with proceeds from a highly regressive tax that burdens the poor more than anyone else, amounts to the evil Republicans led by the President “Stealing Healthcare From Babies.”

Hillary should give him an honorary campaign position for that little bon mot.

— WLS

30 Responses to “When Did Ron Brownstein Become a Mouth Organ for the Dem. Party?”

  1. This kind of drivel from the media no longer surprises me. However, the write-up by the Arizona Republic is surprising, as it lays out the numbers and the facts.

    JD (26820f)

  2. The Hill blog had a very partisan attack on Republicans by Congresswoman Capps who succeeded her husband after he died a decade ago and who credited herself as a “former school nurse.” Her post was just as tendentious as Brownstein’s. There were no comments so I posted one and, guess what ? It never appeared. The lefties don’t want any argument. They know what is best and we should just shut up and pay. I am a little surprised that you are so late realizing the Brownstein is a DNC fan.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  3. What is lost in the shuffle is that a program designed for uninsured children, has now been expanded to adults, and will cover people with an income up to $60,000. We are not far away from a national healthcare plan, and they will likely be content to continue chipping away at it, bit by bit, until they have enough people receiving this largesse that there will be no way to stop it.

    JD (26820f)

  4. I suspect that a huge percentage of the “uninsured children” are the children of illegal aliens and they will receive better health care than American children.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  5. Congress recesses on Friday.

    Are the Senate Republicans going to filibuter medical insurance for poor children as their last act for over a month?

    alphie (015011)

  6. alphie – As both of the articles pointed out, this program is no longer about insurance for poor children. It now encompasses insurance for middle class adults. We know that facts are like kryptonite to you, but dammit, at least try to bring your “B” game.

    JD (26820f)

  7. …how it serves the White House’s apparent strategy of embroiling congressional Democrats in unrelenting conflicts with Bush that alienate swing voter.

    Dollars in freezers, cries for surrender in Iraq, porcine earmarks galore, and harmony with the White House on the one issue Americans all agreed they hated–amnesty. No, the Dems have managed to alienate swing voters very well on their own.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  8. All through the 90’s, Brownstein was a shill for the DLC/Clinton wing of the Dems. Which, at times, put him slightly to the right of his paper’s Ed Page.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  9. JD,

    I agree that this bill is a porker, but the people who came up with such howlers as “Patriot Act” and “Global War on Terruh” can’t squeal when it’s used against them, can they?

    Either the Republicans vote for this bill…or they hate children.

    Such is politics.

    alphie (015011)

  10. alphie:

    By your logic, either you voted for the PATRIOT Act or you love terrorists.

    Right?

    wls (ba694e)

  11. Or maybe alphie just hates Americans. I’d believe that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  12. “By your logic, either you voted for the PATRIOT Act or you love terrorists.”

    That’s how it was done.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  13. “Stealing Healthcare from Babies”

    No one I’ve read has said a thing about the funding of SCHIP. It will come from increasing the FET on cigarettes by 150%.

    The House passed it.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  14. Are the Senate Republicans going to filibuter medical insurance for poor children as their last act for over a month?

    $60,000 a year for a family is poor?

    25 years old is a child?

    Honestly, what color is the sky there where you are?

    No one I’ve read has said a thing about the funding of SCHIP. It will come from increasing the FET on cigarettes by 150%.

    And it’s estimated that it will take about 9 million new smokers for the FET increase to cover the cost…

    Thankfully, half the people being covered by this “child-insuring bill” are over 18… If you require them to smoke, you’re almost half way there!

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  15. “No one I’ve read has said a thing about the funding of SCHIP. It will come from increasing the FET on cigarettes by 150%.”

    Do you really think that smoking will support a 65 billion dollar program ? This is the salami technique of government spending. 1. “It’s for the children.” 2. “We will get all the funds from that sinful practice of smoking.” 3. “Voting against this means you hate children. ”

    QED

    Mike K (86bddb)

  16. For all of the vitriol levelled at smokers, if everybody just quit smoking tomorrow, it seems like the state and federal government would stop dead in its tracks.

    JD (26820f)

  17. For all of the vitriol levelled at smokers, if everybody just quit smoking tomorrow, it seems like the state and federal government would stop dead in its tracks.

    Comment by JD — 8/2/2007 @ 7:50 am

    Exactly.

    That’s why I smoke. I smoke because I care.

    Real Americans smoke.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  18. From “the Simpsons” TV show –

    “But what about the Children!?” [said to hide nefarious schemes which on their face are said to help “children”]

    Someday we in California will have a proposition that calls for a 100% tax to establish Satan as ruler-for-life, and it will be called “The healthcare for poor children standing before the American Flag (Long may it Wave!) holding fresh baked apple pie Initiative. The short name shall be ‘Poor Childre/Apple pie/Flag Initiative.'”

    Californio (b4db1f)

  19. How many uninsured children are there? That’s the most relevent question. The CBO says 5-6 Million, the administration says much less. How does it get those numbers?

    For example, consider two children, one of whom is uninsured for the first six months of the year and the second of whom is uninsured for the second six months of the year. The Administration’s estimates would not count either child as uninsured, because neither was uninsured for the entire year. In any month, however, one of them would be uninsured and potentially eligible for coverage under a public program.”

    Of course as George says, they can all go to the emergency ward.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  20. For all of the vitriol levelled at smokers, if everybody just quit smoking tomorrow, it seems like the state and federal government would stop dead in its tracks.

    It sure would. And in addition to taking care of “the children!” high cigarette taxes are also funding organized crime and terrorism (just like Prohibition.) Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism

    Patricia (549779)

  21. What are the categories of adults covered in the 14 states that cover adults?

    Wikipedia says “Some states have received Section 1115 demonstration authority to use SCHIP funds to cover the parents of children receiving benefits from both SCHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and other adults.”. The named categories (parents of covered children and pregnant women) make some logical sense (agree with the policy or not), but who are the other adults?

    Crust (399898)

  22. AF made a post that was related to the topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well done.

    JD (26820f)

  23. Tomorrow’s headline from the LAT: “Confirmed: Bush is Satan.”

    Patricia (824fa1)

  24. That’s a very poorly-written first sentence. Saying that “the 8 million children without health insurance” are “a blot on the nation” which Congress “is moving responsibly to remove” sounds like they’re getting ready to kill 8 million children. That would solve the problem, but even this right-wing death beast doesn’t approve. Brownstein should have come up with a better metaphor than blot removal.

    Dr. Weevil (0f388e)

  25. How are they removing the blot (8M uninsured children) by extending coverage to adults and the middle class?

    JD (26820f)

  26. “to the middle class…”
    whose children have no health coverage.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  27. It will be interesting to see what happens when the increase in taxes causes a drop-off in tax revenue to support this program. As sure as winter follows summer, the Democrats will be back with a plea for more taxes to cover this program.

    steve miller (b643f2)

  28. When yuo make 60K a year, AF, the only reason they don’t have it is because the parents CHOSE not to get it.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  29. […] against the SCHIP. (If you’d care for a more indepth look at what Brownstein says, see Patterico’s post on the topic; I’m only focusing on one […]

    One Stack Mind » Why English Class Matters (dcab76)

  30. Re my #21: Now that I think about it, I’m surprised that more states don’t cover pregnant women (assuming I’m reading the Robb quote right, if only 14 cover adults [at all], at least 36 don’t cover pregnant women).

    This is pure speculation, but maybe the “other adults” come about by having an age limit over 18 (say the cutoff is 21, so that 18, 19 and 20 yearolds are covered adults).

    Crust (399898)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0828 secs.