The Washington Post and Heritage Foundation have pointed to an example of how phony our legislators are and most of the time chicanery like this goes unnoticed by Joe Sixpack.
The Senate's approach to Medicare in its budget reconciliation package tells us it saves $5Billion in Medicare spending in 2006. But, a look at the Congressional Budget Office report shows how the Senate Finance Committee plans to rein in Medicare spending.
[blockquote] Delay in Payment of Claims. Section 6112, which would eliminate the regional stabilization fund for MA plans, also would postpone payments for Medicare Part A and B benefits for six business days at the end of the fiscal year 2006. The provision would postpone"”until October 2, 2006"”payments that would otherwise be made by Medicare carriers and fiscal intermediaries during the period from September 22 through September 30, 2006. This provision would shift spending from 2006 to 2007 but would not affect total spending over the 2006-2010 or 2006-2015 periods.
[/blockquote] According to CBO, this bit of fiscal voodoo cuts 2006 spending by about $5 billion, about twice the "savings" that the Senate Finance plan would create in 2006--in other words, the Committee actually plans to spend a bit more than half of what it "saves" in 2006 by shifting doctor payments forward to 2007.
Senators Tom Coburn (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.), John Ensign (Nev.), John Sununu (N.H.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have proposed a less phony approach. They would delay the new Medicare prescription drug benefit for two years and use part of the savings to provide more generous benefits for needy seniors.
The total savings? $40 billion. And those are real savings, not just obligations shifted from one year to the next.
I continue to like this freshman Senator Coburn. McCain's all over the map and unpredictable in many areas, but he's been a fiscal conservative from the day he stepped in the Senate.
Sources: Heritage Foundation, Washington Post, Tom Coburn's website.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,133
RE: The dishonesty of Congress...
I know this has been talked about in the past but what about Congressional term limits. It seems that rookie senators are energetic and usually do their jobs well in the first few terms. After they are in place a while they develop more power and the political cronyism starts. Pork appears and everything is passed with strings attached. After they have been in place for a decade or two corruption sometimes occurs. It isn't always the senator but often members of the inner circle that go wrong. I wonder how things would run if we had fresh blood in there every 8 years.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
Term limits will never happen. Although I don't support them in theory, I'm pragmatic enough to know that it would result in better government.
In my home state a citizen movement and initiative petition resulted in voting for term limits several years ago and it was necessary to grandfather some pols to get it passed. Limits are kicking in this year and it's goodbye to some of those good ole boys that have been there for decades. New rules say no more than 12 years combined for either or both chambers.
But then we have a balanced budget amendment here as well, so that keeps MOST of the pork out of the budget.
The dishonesty of Congress...
