Missing The Biggest Part Of The Story

The New York Times runs a post-mortem on the S-CHIP legislation that appears headed for another narrowly-upheld presidential veto, showing the missteps on all sides that led to the impasse. The White House attacked it early and harshly, the Senate Republicans favoring it failed to make its case to the Bush administration, and House Democrats cut out House Republicans from the development of the bill. It all sounds like another happy day of gridlock.
At Heading Right, I note that most of this inside-baseball look at the S-CHIP expansion failure covers ground already known to most. The real story gets missed by the Gray Lady, which is the actual policy and its fatal flaws. The Times neglects to mention the two biggest points in the debate and why those issues torpedoed the expansion plan. (via Memeorandum)

11 thoughts on “Missing The Biggest Part Of The Story”

  1. I was supposed to be out there on Thursday until one of our main clients decided they couldn’t leave on schedule. I’m disappointed to say the least.

  2. When it comes to spending taxpayer money, GRIDLOCK is your FRIEND! 🙂
    …and of course the opposite of Pro-gress is Con-gress.

  3. The Democrat congress is the gift that keeps on giving. They have passed no significant legislation which means that we are a little bit safer, a little bit freer, and have a little bit more cash in our pockets. Hooray for gridlock!!

  4. Ed,
    This whole SCHIP expansion is from an old (worn out) democratic playbook; frame the Republicans as heartless to the children—the same game they played in the 90’s with the school lunch programs where a 4% reduction in 10% increase (proposed by the dems) was considered a CUT.
    Also from today’s NYT’s piece:
    “I was told last January or February by Democrats that their game plan was to send the president a bill that was too big to swallow, and it would be a beautiful political issue for them,” … Allan B. Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council

    Same old story……….different cast

  5. It’d be nice if our legislators would be required to actually read (and understand) the bills offered in their entirety before being allowed to vote on any of them. Sure, it would slow down legislation, but is that really such a bad thing?

  6. On the other hand, this is an excellent example of how our Founding Fathers set up our US Constitution: TO WORK.
    In other words? We had our first 11 Revolutionary years, following 1776; amounting to a BUST. The states wouldn’t budge. Revolutionary soldiers went unpaid, and their feet un-shod. No one wanted to pay those debts.
    And, while you might not remember this one; you could look it up: SHAYS REBELLION. An early tax revolt, against the decency of repaying debts.
    As if yahoo’s with their own self-interests, really care.
    Anyway, out went the “Articles of Confederation,” and in came the US Constituiton. Floating overboard was the utopian dream that you can count on others to give away their daily bread … just for you … Or to do “the right thing.”
    Doesn’t happen.
    Instead? You’re looking for consensus. When consensus happens you get to Amendments. Good and bad. But that really takes a supra-marjority.
    And, we ain’t there, yet.
    Where are we? Well Tony Blair, for instance, once a prime-minister; got defeated. And, he’s now a carnival barker. “Step right up folks (Jews). And, take a “chance on peace.” Disband your defenses. Let the rule of the savages, prevail.
    Uh huh.
    You buying this shit? It’s not a drug? It’s just a leaf? Well, it is a leaf. Fig. Or not.
    Perhaps, since a lot of heads come together, here; the place to look is on the range of “happy people” who support Bush. Or who even support the clowns they send to Congress. True, one congress critter has not raised a cane, to beat another congress critter, senseless. But it’s happened.
    While the match has been lit in Pakistan.
    And, the dude in the WHite House believes in miracles. And, democracy sprouting out among savages.
    Here’s a clue for you. If you think we’re dealing with self-serving people, across our nifty 50. Who win elections … This will NEVER sprout among the tribal savages. No how. No way.
    Up ahead? Give this a decade. You’ll hear the laments. The laments that Saddam was secular. And, kept things under control in his part of the woods.
    ANd, ditto, for Musharraf. Who did not need the incompetency of Condi Rice to make a bad situation go worse.
    You think all those fancy pants lawyers, arraigned against Musharaff, stand a chance when the Islamists come in and pick up the pieces? Ya know what. I don’t predict the future. And, I eschew gambling. But you can bet on it! Patistan won’t be as friendly towards America when this clown show is over.
    I’ll place another bet. I’m not the only person concerned. Among independents who would like to see January 20, 2009 … rolling around already.
    How much mischief from Dubya ahead? Dunno. But the Saud’s have all the money in the world, to keep paying for this bullshit.
    Oh, and they’re pumping oil like crazy! Profits for them, have never been higher.
    Too bad we can’t trade “oil fields” for CitiCorp. We could. If our military was feared, though.
    Too many ideas for some to hold in their heads all at once?
    This S-Chip business is strictly a local special interest. IT. DOES. NOT. ENGAGE.
    It might as well be the front grill of the EDSEL.

  7. That is why (imo) even term limit is not going to solve the problem of congress.
    Whoever gets elected will be too busy attaching their names to the newest bills they can come up with as fast as they can type/write them. Who is going to be interested in “enforcing” (oversight) someone else’s bills written 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
    We will be saddled with layers and layers of the same law, or with contradictory laws at the discretion of which government branch to enforce whichever they choose.

  8. The NYT and rest of the MSM are much more interested in PROCESS than in PRODUCT. It’s an easy piece, writing about who is pro, who con, attributions of motives, quotes of anonymous sources, are the votes there. Much harder to actually read the legislation and write about that.

  9. This has never been about the schip bill itself it has from the beginning been nothing but a sideshow used for political purpose only. Their lockdown on the opposition shows it for that.
    Now that needs to be debated on the floor of the house and senate but I don’t think I will see that.

Comments are closed.