An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
First A 12-Year-Old And His Family Were Attacked For Opposing Bush’s Kids’ Health Insurance Veto
And now the Democrats have highlighted a 2-old and her family — so they are under the same kind of attack.
21st Century Politics 101: If they oppose you on an issue, they must be discredited and taken out… Debate on the issue? Issue shmissue…
56 Responses to “First A 12-Year-Old And His Family Were Attacked For Opposing Bush’s Kids’ Health Insurance Veto”
I wish we could talk about s-chip and not just who is evil and hates kids.
Fair enough. So perhaps if these campaigns are not launched against people who come out against the veto Americans can do just that.
You now see this style of “politics” right across the boards on issues, and also in comments. How many blog posts do we see where someone raises an issue and the second they do people go after the writer personally? If those who feel this is a valid veto would outline their case why and engage the people coming foward on the issues, perhaps the polls would continue to show Mr. Bush’s argument’s gaining ground. We did a post a day ago on a poll that showed he is gaining ground on the debate. It’s doubtful he’s gaining ground because people are demonizing kids and families that are coming forward. And if it sounds terrible to criticize people who do that kind of thing, then I guess it will sound terrible. Because trying to discredit people who step foward and oppose the veto is NOT discussing the issue of whether this plan is valid and/or needed — it is trying to take someone out because they are making a point that someone fears will be listened to by people. So they go after the person making the point — and who cares if it’s a kid or a parent who has agonized over health care issues with their kids?
As I’ve noted before, the revote will fail. But once the news media focuses on the “plight issues” there could be problems for the GOP. So are each of these people who are featured in newspaper stories or broadcast pieces going to have people going after them to try and discredit them? THIS is politics??
compromising. ha! a compromise, for bush, is doing it his way… but you get to gripe about it…
Well, gee, Steve. You really convinced me by calling me a hypocrite. That’s really the kind of debate I suggested we do in my comment above. It sort of underlines why some bloggers don’t bother with comments since some folks seem to be addicted to personal attacks.
It’s your characterization of the Frosts as “human shields.” Rather than just outline why you disagree you call me a “hypocrite” which really means there’s no reason why I should bother reading what you write. Why read someone who just calls you names?
OH. Where in my little post above did it say I was opposed to a compromise? Or did some Internet Monster delete that assertion? Not that you care, but I almost did a post on a news story about a possible compromise and I was going to applaud the idea. But no matter. You’ve had your release and even though it violates our comments policy it really is ironic that I left that comment and it’s immediately followed up by a) me being called a hypocrite and b) being accused of taking a position I not only never took but haven’t even WRITTEN ABOUT yet.
stevesturm claims that the substance of GOP criticism is being ignored. No, it is that there is no substance to the GOP claim. It’s BS. Meaningless prattle. After the latest one I’m waiting for them to claim that the poor should be sterilized if they can’t be trusted to not have children they can’t afford.
Stevestrum,
Quite a few Republicans in Congress worked on this bill. The bill is a bipartisan comprimise with sponsors on both sides of the aisle. It’s Bush who doesn’t comprimise, where was his veto pen when his party bought votes for the “Old folks medicine give away to pharma”?
Steve: Your last comment is really over the line in that you said the the word you used was actually “tame.” Did you see “the censors” take off your last comment or your other ones? The “censors” include some TMVers of various viewpoints who have already emailed me about this and I said I did not want to remove it. The next personal attack will be removed. All of this illustrates my point. YOU were not attacked or mentioned and ALL conservatives were not attacked and mentioned. I linked to an article and made two line or so comment. Sorry but I’m not going to get bogged down in comments. Consider this a request to refrain from insults since not one has been aimed at your or your website.
SS – Bush doesn’t do compromise. Were is the current Tip O’Neil-Reagan relationship with Bush and the Democrats and Bush and his own Republicans in Congress. He vetoes S-CHIPS, but let’s the Seniors Drug Plan through, no standing on principle on the Drug Plan. Seniors vote, twelve years olds don’t vote for six more years.
The Democrats and the extra-loserish leftists on this site have no shame!
Bush has said he was willing to compromise on funding, that he wanted to make sure the program stayed focused on poor kids. Expanding the program to include adults and not poor kids is not “Bush hates Kids!”. Republicans in the House reached out to talk about a compromise that wouldn’t be vetoed and got no response from the majority. To busy going on tv saying how Bush doesn’t care about
black peoplekids.When anyone is put out in front of the public to rally support for political gain of course people are going to take a look at them, as well they should. There shouldn’t be attacks or judgments about their personal lives but the reason they didn’t stay private is because they themselves made it public. Creating a discussion about where to draw the line on govt assistance using these people as a example are more than justified. Do I think Malkin is correct? No, but neither are those who refuse to discus facts and just keep repeating that “kids need help”
Yep, sounds like someone who wants an honest debate about facts and isn’t trying to polarize an issue.
The Bush administration has amassed an impressive record of lashing out and attempting to discredit any who dare to shine a light on them – regardless of the source. In that sense they function more like a banana republic than any US government I’ve seen in the 37 years I’ve been a voter. What is more deeply disappointing though is the knee-jerk cheerleading and defense I see of this behavior. Clearly my expectations for a responsible citizenry are too high in an age where loyalty to party or ideology (real or imagined) trumps loyalty to country and truth. The bar gets lower…
And again with ignore facts and reasoned discusion when Bush bashing is available.
The longstanding Bush MO of attacking it’s critics (including dissenters from within it’s own ranks) is well documented. Commenting on the phenomenon is hardly “bashing”, however much some might prefer to dismiss it as such.
I remember some other Bush ‘compromises”–what about when he offered to have Rove and Miers testify before the Judiciary Committee- OFF THE RECORD and WITHOUT A TRANSCRIPT about the US atty firings? That’s Bush’s type of compromise- totally meaningless.
Let the veto stand. In ’08 the GOP will go down in flames for sticking with him. If you doubt it look at how the Democrats are outraising their opposition 2 or 3 to 1. Look at how many Republicans have decided to retire—12 in the House and 5 in the Senate, and we’re still 15 months from the election. Bush’s party will pay big for his unwillingness to compromise- and his hypocritical decision that helping working class kids is too much like big government after enlarging the government more than any president since FDR.
I might add that all the Democrats have to do is portray Bush and his allies- the party of family values -as attacking working families and voters will respond. After working for 7 yrs to build a permanent Republican majority in the bureacracy and the federal courts, Bush is now driving the GOP off the cliff. Which is a shame in this case, because SCHIP does have bipartisan backing. Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley are two of its sponsors. Why not attack them instead of a 2 year-old?
The Dems keep put up people that are already covered by this program, Why? These people are not representative of the those that the expansion is suppose to cover. Could it be that they are afraid that if the American people actually see who they want covered, the polling will be worse that it already is?
To bad you folks are ignoring the polls that show that more people are siding with Bush on the facts of his veto.
So it would appear that the public does indeed have some of the same concerns that Bush expressed in vetoing the bill.
Maybe it’s just me but the program was for poor kids. If you want universal coverage go for that not take a program meant for one thing and stretch it as far as you can guilt people into letting you get away with.
It originally was meant for poor kids, but much of the middle class is sliding into poverty because of stagnated wages, and higher housing, healthcare and energy costs. There are many areas of the country where 60,000 doesn’t pay for very much. Imo, its better to provide a little help to keep this from occuring. Also, many kids now have no insurance- when that happens easily treated conditions go untreated and become complicated illnesses.
And if we are going to go by polls -which also show the public supports the bill, we should immediately begin withdrawing from Iraq- because that also has public support.
tonto makes a great point. These people are covered and Bush has never said he wanted to shrink the coverage. As a matter of fact I’ve heard more than a little about getting kids who qualify but not part of the program enrolled. Also 4 states, Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, all have more adults enrolled in the program than children. To me that is a misuse of the program. We keep using the $41,000 number but 16 states set higher limits than that already. 7 of those over $60,000 for a family of 4. This is no slam dunk for Dems and as people find out more there may bee more and more movement on this issue.
Bones- its going to be a boondoggle for the GOP if it doesn’t pass. The bill that passed Congress did not include adults and put poor kids first in line. A lot of Republicans signed it and it even had the blessing of the medical professionals. The money Bush is offering doesn’t even cover those currently enrolled(which he is well aware of) and he’s purposely creating the confrontation so he can appease the base that he’s fiscally conservative. That’s no way to compromise- he’s just angering his opponents.
Less kids are uninsured now than 10 years ago. I wish everyone the best and hope that no one has a hard time but this is real life. I do believe that my heath care is my responsibility so is my families health care. When making decisions that is something I should take into account. Yes there are parts of the county that some don’t live as well on $60,000 as others. So? There are still people raising families in that same part of the country (wherever it is) that are raising families on $40,000. I would think the extra $20,000 could pay for insurance if they choose to do so. Maybe they can’t buy that house they want are will have to commute from farther away, no vacation trips or a couple extra years between new cars. The point is the average family can pay for insurance if they chose.
“Bush has said he was willing to compromise on funding, that he wanted to make sure the program stayed focused on poor kids. Expanding the program to include adults and not poor kids is not “Bush hates Kids!â€.”
When did Bush say he was willing to compromise? Only after constantly repeating the threat to veto the bill. Has he actually proposed a solid alternative? No. Go away and read about the current bill. Then comment. Not the RNC talking points about it. Not the Bush press releases about it. Not the Rush Limbaugh coverage. In fact the current bill places limitations on adults. It does not expand coverage of adults. That is a lie.
Over and over again the fact that these people who have spoken out are covered by SCHIP is cited as some reason they shouldn’t be complaining. The people saying this obviously haven’t been paying attention. The funding that Bush initially proposed would not have maintained a funding level to keep current coverage levels available. It wouldn’t have kept up with medical inflation.
And it’s very amusing to see conservatives who constantly denigrate polls point to an obviously blatantly biased poll to support their position. The framing of the questions is everything in a poll and that one’s a doozy, whoever wrote it.
And then there’s the predictable cry of Bush bashing being the only thing going on. What about Bush posterior osculation. I see a lot of that going on here. A whole lot.
Krit a quik look shows that you facts are cherry picked. The plan allows the states to cover adults and that has not changed (they did need to get a waiver). The money does cover those enrolled but would need another 10 bill over 5 years. If you bumped the adults and set all state levels to 200% of the poverty line then with the increase you could add many more children. Is Missouri a state that $60,000 doesn’t pay for much. Because that is one of the states where the limit is over 300%
“Yes there are parts of the county that some don’t live as well on $60,000 as others. So? There are still people raising families in that same part of the country (wherever it is) that are raising families on $40,000. I would think the extra $20,000 could pay for insurance if they choose to do so. Maybe they can’t buy that house they want are will have to commute from farther away, no vacation trips or a couple extra years between new cars.”
Don’t live as well in some parts of the country? That section displays so much ignorance that it’s hard to believe someone believes it. But of course they do. Of course anyone who believes it isn’t aware of certain basic facts of modern life.
Like the current median cost of housing in those parts of the country. The cost of an apartment for a family. The fact that Section 8 isn’t that popular any longer if you can even get it. What’s the income cut off for that again? New cars on that income? What new cars? Used, baby, and hope and pray that they don’t break down often enough to get you fired. What? They want how much for car insurance because I don’t have the money to live in a nice neighborhood or an excellent credit rating? Vacations? What are those? Extra $20,000, my ass. Not in those parts of the country. I know that, and I don’t live in them. But I do know someone who got transferred to them and while they were sure making more money than these families we’re talking about they had a major case of sticker shock being moved from the midwest to the east coast. A transfer to Atlanta was a break but even there was quite a bit more expensive and this was years ago. It’s only gotten worse since then.
I feel that Bush threatened the veto to try and get the congress to work something out before this passed. I think the Dems didn’t want to compromise so they pushed the issue. I can understand that some feel it’s a big enough issue that they don’t want to compromise, but bashing Bush for the same thing is kind of weak.
I never said that the new bill expanded coverage for adults.
Jim why in 4 states are there more adults than children enrolled? Does that fit with the purpose of the program?
You know it’s funny that you cast aspersions on my knowledge without saying anything concrete at all. Just that basically anyone who disagrees is ignorant and or brainwashed. I love the high level of discourse here.
I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind but I do wish we could get beyond the bashing to the real merits.
Usa today
Thats obviously biased? They could of used $83,000 to describe the Dems plan without being inaccurate. Are to you object to them using the numbers at all? Might be better if the public didn’t know who they were going to be paying for right?
So Jim Missouri?
I don’t get it.
The rationale for expanding SCHIP was already debated and explained on several earlier posts here.
The rationale for including SOME adutts has been gone over and over.
The rationale for the income levels for eligibility has benn explained over and over.
Now, it starts from the beginning.
The news here is about a fresh outbreak of smearing.
Smearing as an expression of political opinion is still ugly and still unacceptable, just like it was before
That, however, is ignored in favor of returning to quesion no. 1 about SCHIP.
I get the feeling this is just some kind of triabal ritual.
the flip side of President Bush hypocrisy on spending is the Democratic Party’s desire to increase entitlement programs while promoting open borders and unlimited immigration. How can the Democratic party talk about declining wages when they support unlimited immigration? How can the Democratic party talk about good government when in the last two weeks a liberal judge decided that investigating ID theft is a violation of civil rights and the governor of NY State decided that he can have his own immigration program.
The left in the U.S. needs to decide whether it wants massive entitlement spending or unlimited immigration. There is no way that the U.S. can sustain both.
SD- Where are you getting that the Democrats support open borders? That’s a little bit broad-isn’t it? And what does immigration have to do with SCHIP? And the subject here is whether its appropriate for the GOP and its media allies to smear the families that have volunteered to put a human face on the bill.
Bones- the reason for bashing Bush is that this is his overall pattern- to indicate a willingness to compromise when his starting position isn’t even where it needs to be to keep kids in already in the program insured. He can look like he’s willing to meet in the middle, but really just ok the legislation exactly as it was before the new bill was passed. Also, he exposes himself to charges of hypocrisy for increasing entitlements when it was in his best political interest to do so- but when it was fiscally irresponsible.
Also, The reason the campaign uses kids already enrolled is to show that this is a government program that is working well- not an inefficient waste of funding. The bill gives Bush leeway in changing the upper income limit in certain states- he can decline to do so if he wants.
A good part of the middle-class didn’t benefit from Bush’s tax cuts and have been hurt by stagnated wages, rising healthcare and energy costs and loss of employer provided insurance plans. It is shortsighted not to address this need, and whatever you think the poll numbers show, the issue of GOP neglect of the middle-class will be key for the Democrats in ’08. Its an issue that will play well for them, which is why they are taking a firm stand on it.
Which kids who are already in the program would lose their coverage, Kim? I’m so tired of this BS line being thrown out there with no evidence that this is so- Bush is proposing a 20% increase and has said that he’s willing to increase that more if necessary to cover the poor kids- just not to do it for those of higher incomes, because that would put higher income families ahead of the line instead of prioritizing the most needy.
That’s the crux of it, isn’t it? Politics is all about what “plays well”, not what “works well”.
Posted by Holly at Joe’s Request:
Bones says that he never said that the new bill expanded coverage to include adults but…
CS says
At the current rate of inflation of medical costs a 20% increase spread out over 5 years means that kids would be dropped. It would be inevitable. Where did Bush say he’d agree to more? Is it only now, after his veto drew enough bad publicity? It certainly wasn’t early on in this debate. I’m tired of the BS thrown out by Bush sycophants who apparently don’t notice anything unless it’s in a White House press release or Faux News.
CStanly-
I can’t speak for Krit, but at issue are the kids that qualify for SCHIP but are not enrolled because of a shortage of funds. States have been known to simply stop accepting applications at some point.
Personally, I don’t think SCHIP can be fairly evaluated without putting in the context of the broader failure of our health care system.
If there was a decent system in place for all, there would no need for SCHIP. That’s where the solution lies, not in arguments about the one stop-gap program that exists. If we ever manage to get the health care system in order, programs like SCHIP will wither away due to natural causes.
Here we are, a country of extreme wealth and bitter need. There is something wrong with the
picture.
PS I read that Malkin and her husband could not find affordable health insurance. If true, that would add a novel twist to the debates.
Jim: Bush has said repeatedly that he’s willing to increase the amount of funding- curiously that hasn’t been reported on blogs that aren’t conservative leaning.
Doma: So why have the states run out of funds? If it is truly a case of not having enough funding in the bill to cover the kids whose families are at the income level that the program was designed to cover, then the argument should be made that more funds should be provided. But if it’s the case that some states have used the funds for adults or families of higher income levels, then that’s a different story. If certain states feel the need to offer such a program to other people than those for whom it was designed, then let them look to their state revenues for the money to do so.
As to a program “withering on the vine”….please. If the program is already morphing to cover other needs even before it’s met its mandate, how can anyone possibly think that the program will just wither away at any point?
In my local paper the other day was a quote from one of our state officials, complaining the GA stands to get less money from the feds because we’ve done such a good job of covering kids who needed to be insured. She’s complaining that this is some sort of injustice. Now tell me again how the program is going to wither away, with attitudes like that?
CS-
You’re arguing about peas and carrots in a soup, while some of us are trying to point out that the soup bowl is empty.
If the parents who cna’t afford health insurance for themselves can only get coverage for the kids through SCHIP, that’s better than nothing, but it still leaves them and their CHILDREN vulnerable.
Sick parents cna’t work to provide for the family, and neither can bankrupt ones. Medical expenses are a major cause of bankruptcy, BTW.
The importance of keeping families together, working and contributing need hardly be rehashed again, I hope.
It’s much more expensive for the governement, the taxpayers, to deal with failed families and individuals AFTER they’ve failed that it is to help them stay afloat.
The federalist “let the states pay’ argument is just a means of kicking the can into an empty lot. Tax bases, revenues and the COL vary enormously among the states. The child, or family, living in a cash-poor state gets no less sick than those in a cash-plush state. They are all part of the US, however.
The withering away of SCHIP, as I pointedly said, can not happen until the health care system is brought under control .to service everyone. The greatest cause for expansion of government programs is the failure of the system.
That’s true for every scocietal issue, as far as I can see. Welfare mothers are created, to a considerable degree,, by failures in our system of criminal law. Throwing black men into jail for marijuana possession, takes them out of the economic picture, often for life. Ex-cons don’t have great job opportunities
We must look at how things link together and how one policy or program affects other programs if we are to have meaningful solutions.
Harping away at SCHIP in pieces instead of as part of a larger whole, as if it existed in a bubble, isolated from all other considerations, is short-sighted and detrimental to even understanding what the problems are, much less finding solutions.
CS- This happens to be a program that works well, but you are right its an issue that plays well at election time-just like ads making Democrats look like they are clueless about national security has worked well for the Republicans.
As far as Bush goes- he has a big credibility gap and seems to be going to bat against this bill so he can reclaim his lost sense of fiscal responsibility. If, its due to his stated purpose of making sure parents don’t cancel private policies, he should have used that line of reasoning 7 years ago when he proposed increasing entitlements with his Medicare prescription plan.
The fact that he finally found his veto pen after 6 years, makes it look like pure partisanship. Compromise with the opposition has never been his strong suit.
And, I’d also like to know when he said that he’d increase the funding 20%.
I am against paying taxes and paying for families making 42K to 62K to do the right thing and me buy insurance for their kids.
Kim,
You can’t be serious about this:
Bush proposed a 5 billion increase, which represents a 20% increase (as opposed to the bill that was passed and vetoed, which called for a 140% increase, and the alternative that the GOP
in Congress will put forward will be somewhere in between (it’ll probably call for whatever level of funding is needed to cover all families who’re currently in the program, and enough to add all kids from families in the 100-200% FPL range- and then handle the 200-300% bracket by giving tax credits for private insurance, paid for by eliminating the employer based tax deduction for people of high income brackets).
If you truly hadn’t heard that Bush’s proposal was for a 20% increase, then you really need to start reading something other than the Dem talking points.
That’s true for every scocietal issue, as far as I can see. Welfare mothers are created, to a considerable degree,, by failures in our system of criminal law. Throwing black men into jail for marijuana possession, takes them out of the economic picture, often for life. Ex-cons don’t have great job opportunities
We must look at how things link together and how one policy or program affects other programs if we are to have meaningful solutions.
Doma: I agree with you on the need for a holistic approach to problem solving, but I guess you and I differ on how we see these programs interacting. For example, I see that the Great Society built up a (near) permanent underclass by treating people as though they could do no better than collect a govt check. Throwing money at the problem and providing payment by the government to people (on more than a temporary, safety net basis) never seems to work out the way it’s intended. It’s not just that I oppose the use of taxes in this way, it’s that I also think that in the long run entitlement programs hurt those that they’re supposed to help (and the politicians and bureaucrats may not admit it, but they’re incentive is to keep the people in need rather than getting them out of that situation).
That’s true for every scocietal issue, as far as I can see. Welfare mothers are created, to a considerable degree,, by failures in our system of criminal law. Throwing black men into jail for marijuana possession, takes them out of the economic picture, often for life. Ex-cons don’t have great job opportunities
We must look at how things link together and how one policy or program affects other programs if we are to have meaningful solutions.
Doma: I agree with you on the need for a holistic approach to problem solving, but I guess you and I differ on how we see these programs interacting. For example, I see that the Great Society built up a (near) permanent underclass by treating people as though they could do no better than collect a govt check. Throwing money at the problem and providing payment by the government to people (on more than a temporary, safety net basis) never seems to work out the way it’s intended. It’s not just that I oppose the use of taxes in this way, it’s that I also think that in the long run entitlement programs hurt those that they’re supposed to help (and the politicians and bureaucrats may not admit it, but they’re incentive is to keep the people in need rather than getting them out of that situation).
The numerous defects in the bill have been revealed and explained more than once; too many lefties on here are continuing to be dishonest about the bill and are behaving sometime as surly losers (when not being dishonest and hypocritical at describing the behavior of others as they themselves are actually behaving).
The defects in the bill should be removed.
The lefties should grow up.
No, DLS, it’s not the evil lefties that are being dishonest about the bill. You are. It has been pointed out over and over again that your claims are inaccurate but you repeat them anyway.
CS, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the 20% increase is absolute and does not account for inflation at all. Therefore it is in effect a decrease since it would result in a cut in the number of children covered.
Jim: What claims of DLS have been refuted? Every time I’ve seen him quote the bill or some fact about it, people have changed the subject. I must have missed something if you seem to think he’s misrepresented.
And am I wrong to think that even healthcare costs aren’t rising at greater than a 20% rate? I know they’re outstripping the overall inflation rate, but I’m not aware of any data showing the costs growing more rapidly than that, are you?
C. Stanley said:
C. Stanley,
Here’s what DLS has said in this thread…
In comment 9 he said,
Then in comment 43 he said,
But then again, it was probably just something I missed.
SteveK,
If you’ll check the archives on this issue and look at the comment threads, you’ll see that DLS quoted numerous parts of the bill. Frankly I can’t blame him for being a bit peevish here because he kept trying to engage in a discussion of the particulars of the policy and there wasn’t much in the way of reasoned responses. That’s why I was surprised here when Jim made the accusation that DLS has provided misleading information, because I’d think that if he’d done so then someone might have pointed it out instead of changing the subject every time the bill’s policy was discussed.
DLS referred to an OMB study of the bill that wasn’t really about the compromise bill, but the earlier House version. I pointed this out to him but he still continued to refer to to it as representing the current bill.
In the first post about this issue DLS posted links to the bill. I went and actually read past the summaries that DLS quoted. Here’s what I posted.
What was that about the subject always being changed on him again?
CS, it’s simple math. Bush’s 20% increase is a total increase spread out over 5 years. This means that it works out to only a 4% increase per year. Medical cost/insurance inflation beats that handily.
CS, it’s simple math. Bush’s 20% increase is a total increase spread out over 5 years. This means that it works out to only a 4% increase per year. Medical cost/insurance inflation beats that handily.
Ah, no, Jim, check your math. 4% increase per year X 5 years does not equal 20% increase. 20% increase each year, times five years, still equals a 20% increase over the five year period. It’s just that each 20% annual increase represents 20% of the smaller annual number instead of the total 5 year expenditure.
All of the figures being tossed around are based on the full five years-
Current baseline level of funding projected out over next 5 years would have been 25 billion. The Senate bill was for an increase over the 5 years to 60 billion; Bush proposed an increase to 30 billion.
I’m not sure why the five year numbers are being used (and it’s possible-maybe probable- that the funding isn’t evenly distributed, it probably starts lower and then increases each year in both cases). But for arguments sake (and to check the math), divide it out evenly over 5 years:
Bush’s proposal would be 1 billion extra each year on a baseline budget of 5 billion (or a 20% increase)
Senate bill would be 7 billion extra each year on a baseline budget of 5 billion (or a 140% increase).
On the ‘changing the subject’ part- I admit I’d forgotten that you raised those points to DLS. My recollection is still that most of the other commenters were continuing to ignore the actual issue of what was in the bill.