For Dems only.

[Rex Kickass]

So what are they really blocking?

The Webb amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to give units in combat theater an equal amount of time out of theater.

 

So for example, the average unit spends 15 months in Iraq. By law, the DoD would be not able to send them back into theater for 15 months, and instead their service would be used in other bases, and for other needs.

 

In order to accomodate putting 30,000 more combat troops in Iraq, the DoD lengthened the amount of time a unit would spend in the field but kept their "rest" time the same. So instead of the previous 12 months in, 12 months out rule - it was changed to 15 months in, 12 months out.

[Texsox]

While the explaination is simple, there are huge budget implications. Side bar, who should be fighting this or any war? The White House, Congress, or the Pentagon? We seem to have all three, which if they were all pulling in the same direction would be unbeatable, but it seems as if we have three different directions.

[Balta1701]

While the explaination is simple, there are huge budget implications. Side bar, who should be fighting this or any war? The White House, Congress, or the Pentagon? We seem to have all three, which if they were all pulling in the same direction would be unbeatable, but it seems as if we have three different directions.

Constitutionally, the issue is that they all in fact have a major role. The Congress holds the purse strings, the President is the official Commander in Chief, and the Pentagon is encharged with some level of Presidential power.

 

I think my answer is...there's nothing wrong with some level of separation of powers. Even during the great WWII, the Congress stepped in at several spots where they disagreed with the President, and the President would routinely make policy that his generals would have to follow. During Vietnam, the Congress got heavily involved in ending that debacle.

 

Just as the Constitution puts the 3 major branches of government in conflict with each other, I see no reason why this necessarily has to be a bad thing. Just because one person is the President or one General is put in charge of something doesn't mean he's going to be right about everything. For example; the iraq war. Our system is built on checks and balances. If things are going well, there wouldn't be these sorts of disagreements on this debacle.

[Texsox]

Of course you are correct, and I am usually a big advocate of our system, but this is the second time in my lifetime was are stuck in a war that we seemingly are at a stalemate. I blame some of this on the lack of cooperation between the three groups.

[kapkomet]

Of course you are correct, and I am usually a big advocate of our system, but this is the second time in my lifetime was are stuck in a war that we seemingly are at a stalemate. I blame some of this on the lack of cooperation between the three groups.

^^^^

 

And it's because they are not putting America in front, only themselves.

[Texsox]

^^^^

 

And it's because they are not putting America in front, only themselves.

 

In some cases. I'd think less for those not facing elections, more for those that are.

[Texsox]

I wish the GOP would regan control. the GOPerheads around here have been nuts since they lost.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wish the GOP would regan control. the GOPerheads around here have been nuts since they lost.

You want Donald Regan to run for the GOP nomination? He does have an impressive resume, but he died in 2003.

 

[Texsox]

You want Donald Regan to run for the GOP nomination? He does have an impressive resume, but he died in 2003.

[Balta1701]

So, the Dems in Congress are actually having the start of a fine day, at least before they fold over when Bush vetoes all of this as being too good. First, the SCHIP program expansion the Dems have been working on is expected to fly through the Senate today, on its way to a Bush veto since anything that makes the government cover insurance for more people is bad. Here's the WSJ admiring how solid of a compromise this bill actually is.

In some ways, after difficult negotiations, the bill turned out to be an unusual example of cooperation. In talks with two Senate Republicans, House Democrats compromised. They cut new spending from $50 billion to $35 billion, gave up an effort to cover legal immigrants and young adults, and dropped cuts to private health insurers operating in Medicare.

 

The final deal includes many nods to Republicans -- though most Republicans in the House and Senate oppose it as an irresponsible expansion of government spending. It reduces federal funding for states that enroll children from families with incomes above about $60,000 a year for a family of four; it bars the federal government from allowing any more states to use CHIP funds to cover parents; and it phases out coverage of childless adults that some states include in CHIP.

 

To tilt the program toward poorer children, the bill calls for states not meeting enrollment benchmarks for the lowest income children by October 2010 to give up CHIP funds for enrollees above 300% of the poverty level.

 

"We've given up a little bit because we want to get legislation done," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, a lead negotiator of the deal.

And of course, since bipartisanship and actual negotiation is bad, this will be vetoed by the President.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats also passed in the Senate (beating another filibuster attempt) a bill to expand hate crime legislation and apply it to hate crimes committed due to sexual orientation. Which I can imagine will probably be vetoed also.

[Texsox]

I love seeing this levelk of compromise. We're all better for it.

[Balta1701]

I love seeing this levelk of compromise. We're all better for it.

And what happens when both of those are vetoed?

[Texsox]

And what happens when both of those are vetoed?

 

First off, let's see if the GOP can talk some sense and avoid that. Then we'll see if the cooperation can extend a little further and over ride. But this is a step in the right direction. As Dems all we can ask is an honest effort at compromise, and based on what I'm reading, that honest effort has happened.

[Balta1701]

It hasn't been picked up by any major media bigger than a few blogs and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, but last night, the Senate Unanimously (voice vote) approved an amendment to create an independent, bi-partisan, 8 member panel who's job is to investigate contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq, looking at among other things the billions of dollars that have simply vanished to the process which has allowed companies to acquire contracts without bidding and hold onto them without problems.

[BigSqwert]

States sue Bush over kid insurance

 

By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 8:59 PM ET

 

EAST ORANGE, N.J. - Several states said Monday they would challenge the Bush administration in federal court over its new rules that block the expansion of a health insurance program for children from low-income families.

 

Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Washington are joining in the litigation, either as plaintiffs or by filing supporting briefs.

 

The states object to rules issued by the Bush administration in August that make it harder for them to provide coverage to children in middle-income families by limiting the total income of families who participate.

 

The states accuse the administration of overstepping the federal government's authority to set income limits for participants in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

 

The lawsuit and supporting briefs, which will be filed in federal district court for the Southern District of New York, are another battle between Democrats and the Bush administration over the program that covers 6.6 million children from modest-income families that aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The federal program was set to expire but has been temporarily continued until Congress and the administration can reach a funding agreement.

 

Democrats want to expand the program by $35 billion over five years, funded by new tobacco taxes, to allow a total of about 10 million uninsured children to participate nationwide.

 

Legislation recently passed by Congress would do that, but Bush has threatened to veto the measure.

 

"We are confident that our requirements are appropriate and will be sustained in a court of law," said Jeff Nelligan, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "Our chief goal with SCHIP is to ensure that the poorest kids and those with no health insurance are placed at the front of the line."

 

The president wants to increase funding by $5 billion over five years. Democrats argue that wouldn't even cover the 6.6 million children currently enrolled.

 

New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine told reporters that health insurance coverage for 10,000 poor children in his state is at stake.

 

"We frankly don't understand the administration's position," he said.

 

New Jersey's program, called FamilyCare, provides free and low-cost health care, immunizations, hospitalization, lab tests and X-rays, prescription drugs, dental and mental health services to 122,525 children and 89,050 adults. It costs the state $480 million per year, with $312 million paid for by the federal government.

 

Other governors expressed similar frustrations with the new policy.

 

"These barriers imposed by the Bush administration mortgage both the fiscal and health future of our nation," Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said.

 

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer said the legal challenge was necessary.

 

"It sends a powerful and compelling message when the U.S. Congress, states across the nation and the public are so clearly committed to ensuring that families have access to affordable health care for their children."

 

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's spokeswoman said the state has no direct stake in the dispute over the Bush administration's proposed rules but likely would file a supportive brief to the legal challenge.

 

In Napolitano's view, "this is just the right thing to do," spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said.

 

LINK

Edited October 3, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

First off, let's see if the GOP can talk some sense and avoid that. Then we'll see if the cooperation can extend a little further and over ride. But this is a step in the right direction. As Dems all we can ask is an honest effort at compromise, and based on what I'm reading, that honest effort has happened.

And there's veto #1...

 

Just remember, you're counting your hopes on someone being able to talk some sense into this President. Good luck.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Balta1701

[BigSqwert]

And there's veto #1...

 

Just remember, you're counting your hopes on someone being able to talk some sense into this President. Good luck.

This reminds me of that post that NSS made a while back asking what exactly has Bush done that is good. It's like he is going out of his way to do the wrong things. At the gym during lunch they showed some poll numbers on one of the TVs that had 75% of Americans supporting this bill. Apparently the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq won't affect our taxes but this bill will?

[kapkomet]

This reminds me of that post that NSS made a while back asking what exactly has Bush done that is good. It's like he is going out of his way to do the wrong things. At the gym during lunch they showed some poll numbers on one of the TVs that had 75% of Americans supporting this bill. Apparently the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq won't affect our taxes but this bill will?

It's not about 'taxes'. It's about putting our system closer to socialized health care. However, I do disagree with this veto.

 

[Texsox]

It's not about 'taxes'. It's about putting our system closer to socialized health care. However, I do disagree with this veto.

It's about people barely over Medicaid income levels getting some help with a major expense. Many of these jobs do not have full benefits.

 

To recap the past few weeks

 

$25,000 makes enough to pay for their own health care insurance

$50,000 too much for an assembly line worker at an autoplant

$75,000 barely enough, should not be taxed anymore.

 

[kapkomet]

It's about people barely over Medicaid income levels getting some help with a major expense. Many of these jobs do not have full benefits.

As modified, that's right, that is what the bill is. The original "floor" at $80K+ was ridiculous, though. As I said, this is about the fight on socialized health care. In this instance, this one is really a hybrid, and the "compromise" bill that was sent to the president was reasonable, IMO.

[Rex Kickass]

IIRC, the floor was set at the state level, though. And when you look at some states like NJ, NY, CA. 80K for a family of four or five is not really that much.

 

BTW: Every major GOP Presidential candidate has come out supporting the veto on SCHIP.

[NorthSideSox72]

As modified, that's right, that is what the bill is. The original "floor" at $80K+ was ridiculous, though. As I said, this is about the fight on socialized health care. In this instance, this one is really a hybrid, and the "compromise" bill that was sent to the president was reasonable, IMO.

Part of the problem with setting a single, national salary floor is that 80k is very different from place to place. 80k for a family in, say, Ames, Iowa, is most definitely a middle class lifestyle or maybe even better. 80k living in Boston or New York on the other hand, is scraping by. I'd rather see either the states having some say here, or at least some sort of cost of living adjustor on there. Also, like minimum wage, the salary levels should have an automatic annual increase based on some market basket measure, so that this does not need to be revisited.

 

[Texsox]

Part of the problem with setting a single, national salary floor is that 80k is very different from place to place. 80k for a family in, say, Ames, Iowa, is most definitely a middle class lifestyle or maybe even better. 80k living in Boston or New York on the other hand, is scraping by. I'd rather see either the states having some say here, or at least some sort of cost of living adjustor on there. Also, like minimum wage, the salary levels should have an automatic annual increase based on some market basket measure, so that this does not need to be revisited.

 

I thought that was already done. Maybe that was taken out of the final bill??

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought that was already done. Maybe that was taken out of the final bill??

Which part? Regional adjustments, or inflationary adjustments?

 

[Texsox]

Which part? Regional adjustments, or inflationary adjustments?

 

regional