Content by nthompsonwhitehouse
Posted at 1:27pm on Oct. 18, 2007 Crowd-out in the Dems' SCHIP Proposal
By nthompsonwhitehouse
The Democrats’ proposal for SCHIP is not only outrageously expensive (121% spending increase over five years), but one of every three children covered in the plan will drop private insurance for government coverage.
That ratio increases as the Democrats’ plan creeps up the income ladder. According to the CBO, 1.2 million of the 5.8 million newly insured by the government are upper income, or as they note, the people covered by “expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new populations.” This upper income bracket has a 50% crowd-out rate; meaning for every one person newly insured in SCHIP, one other person will drop private insurance for government coverage.
Posted in Congress — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:27pm on Oct. 12, 2007 Democrats' SCHIP Budget Gimmick
By nthompsonwhitehouse
Promoted from diaries by Mark I.
We are less than one week from the scheduled Congressional vote to override President Bush’s veto of the massive 121% expansion in SCHIP spending, and we want to provide you with a key figure on what will happen in five years in terms of spending, according to the Democrats’ bill.
Under their plan for SCHIP, spending will drop from $13.9 billion in 2012 to only $7.8 billion in 2013.
So, as drafted, the Democrats’ proposal will lead to either billions of dollars in higher taxes in 2013 or millions of children losing their health care coverage. This is deceptive at best and malicious at worst.
President Bush supports a reasonable expansion of SCHIP in line with its original intent, putting poor children first. The bill the President vetoed in some cases covered families earning $83,000 a year, adults, and was the first step on the path toward an inefficient system of government-run healthcare.
Nicholas Thompson
Office of Strategic Initiatives
The White House
Posted in Congress — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:14am on Jun. 1, 2007 White House Response on Worksite Enforcement
By nthompsonwhitehouse
A recent comment displayed a graph showing decreased employer arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the period leading up to 2004 as well as decreased notices of an intent to fine employers by ICE in the period leading up to 2004. It is too bad the graph did not show data going from 2004 up to April 2007 or explain how ICE has redirected their employer enforcement actions to stop levying fines on companies- which were treated by illegal employers as the "cost of doing" business- and instead to focus on criminal prosecutions and asset forfeitures.
More below the fold
Posted in Immigration — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:15pm on May 24, 2007 White House Response on "Good Moral Character" Provision
By nthompsonwhitehouse
[promoted by haystack...again, thanks for engaging us directly...and, Nicholas...small paragraphs please? My eyes ain't what they used to be... :-)]
Regarding Erick's post on the "Good Moral Character" provision being removed from the immigration bill...
Read more below...
Posted in Immigration — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:26am on May 24, 2007 White House Response on Competitive Wages
By nthompsonwhitehouse
[promoted by haystack...because this is JUST what we need around here-dialog and exchange...thanks for coming in to address the issues with us directly...]
Some comments in response to Kerrie's post, "White House Response To Bluey's 5/20 Post", centered around this statement she made: