Bush having a bad day?

What little I know about the new Medicare prescription drug bill looks awful. It's complicated (starting at a subsidy up to a certain total annual expenditure, then no subsidy until reaching a higher total, then a full subsidy above that) and addresses a need most people don't think they have.

Doesn't matter really, I'm with Feeney on this. A new targeted entitlement does seem to go against core Republican principles. If the Dems get over their bout of rabies, this kind of thing makes Bush vulnerable to fiscal irresponsibility charges.

I'm with Feeney, too. And this is where the Republicans have to be careful about losing South Park or whatever Republicans AND Conservative Republicans. Stealing the opponent's thunder can only be taken so far before you start completely selling out your principles.

But I do like Dubya's little snark. I think it's pretty clear whose entitlement is about to get cut at the end of that conversation.

I'm with Feeney too, don't get me wrong. I guess my question is: if Bush is there to cut entitlements (and he's worked up enough about it to hang up on someone) then why isn't he doing just that? It's just an odd story, I thought.

OK, I think this is a somewhat nuanced issue.

Obviously, Bush wanted the Medicare bill to pass and was laying heavy pressure on wavering Republican House members, including Feeney. Sounds like he came on a little too strong, but this happens in the middle of a battle.

On the merits of the Medicare bill, Medicare didn't include prescription drugs in 1965 when it was enacted because it was a relative minor factor in health care costs, but medical care has changed considerably since then. There is in fact a genuine need for assistance with prescription drugs among some seniors, but the need isn't that widespread.

A survey I saw showed 68% of seniors paying less than $1000 a year for drugs, with another 17% paying $1000-2000. However, the remaining 17% do pay a lot, an some of this group is living on rather small fixed incomes. In a perfect world, the right answer was to have a limited, means-tested prescription drug program rather than a broad-based intergenerational transfer.

But in the real world, Bush is running for reelection and could expect to be targeted by Democratic ads decrying his heartlessness in dealing with problem and highlighting seniors who had to choose been food and prescription drugs. Maybe he gets a bit of a pass for signing on to very imperfect legislation that largely kills the issue for the Democrats while adding a few market reforms to Medicare.

If you are looking to be critical of the Bushies, I think the focus should be on the boondoggle energy bill, which started out as an $8 billion measure and ended up around $23 billion, including a giant ethanol giveaway to agricultural state. My favorite provision of the energy bill is the one, aimed at getting the votes of Louisiana's two Democratic senators, that provides aid for a shopping mall in Shreveport which will have Hooters as a tenant. But even without the Hooters element, this bill is a very large bust.

Bobm, good analysis, but is it really that nuanced? Old people vote. Whatever Bush's view on entitlements, or prescription drugs, his goal is to get re-elected. And if he can do that by buying drugs for a bunch of seniors now at the expense of those who will need assistance with medical costs a few years down the road, well, that's politically expedient, if not exactly compassionate or forward-thinking.

No, I get what he was doing to Feeney. I just don't get the 'me too, pal' comment. Does he mean 'me too but you've got to do what you've got to do'. I guess that's what it means, right? Maybe I'm just hoping that Bush is indeed still there to cut entitlements, despite this Medicare bill.

Rick, I don't disagree that there's a very significant measure of political expediency here.

I guess I think the issue is nuanced because on one hand Mr. Bush's reelection is (IMHO) very important for the country, defusing the prescription drug issue will contribute to that victory and the Medicare legislation does have some merit in that addresses a real need (in contrast, for example, to the ethanol and Shreveport mall quackery in the energy bill). On the other hand, I do generally agree with you that the legislation is over the top in expense.

Well, I for one am still young and retain some of the same idealism as Feeney. The extent of compromise is perhaps the hardest part of being in politics. We know it'll happen, yet we try to pretend we won't be the ones to do so. Opposing forces really.

But, I do have confidence there is a distinct strategy behind everything Bush is doing. Rove of course.

We should be happy is is taking a principled stand on terror, which of course is the one issue at the top of most of our lists. If my taxes go up for old people, so be it. I'm confident he'll knock them down somewhere else next term.

But still it bothers me about the compromise. Damns ideals...

NOOOOO. The "me too" is pure snark is the way I read it. It means: I'm here to cut entitlements, namely yours, you little punk. Click.

His star rises no more.

That's my overly dramatic take anyway.

I'm with ken on the snark, although I didn't get it until he pointed it out. Doesn't really make much sense otherwise.

AHHHHHHH. Thanks Ken. I see now.