So Much for Killing Wasteful Programs

By David Nather | July 24, 2009 1:18 PM | | Comments (1)

Now we know how much energy President Obama can spend on eliminating those wasteful federal programs that he expects to reduce the government’s ocean of red ink. With health care, climate change and stimulus questions all competing for his time, the answer is: not much.

In May, Obama proposed killing the Even Start family literacy program, just as President George W. Bush had tried to do. It was one of the highlights of his budget hit list. The Obama administration argued that studies show Even Start didn’t work, just as the Bush administration had claimed. The Obama team even used the same studies the Bush administration had used, which meant they were really, really out of date.

So today, the House is considering its spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. And guess what? Even Start survives. In fact, in its committee report on the bill, the House Appropriations Committee “strongly recommends” the $66.5 million the program would receive in the bill (the same amount it got last year).

Moreover, the committee says the Obama administration’s conclusion that the program doesn’t work was “based on the results of flawed evaluation studies,” noting that the most recent study they had — from 2003 — was “based on a very small sample” and didn’t capture any of the changes from a 2000 program overhaul that created new accountability standards.

If the Obama administration was mad at the committee for keeping Even Start alive, the place to say something would have been in its “statement of administration policy” on the funding bill, its official commentary — released yesterday — on what it likes and doesn’t like about the committee’s proposals.

Not a word about Even Start in it.

So with that, back to the health care fight.

More from CQ Politics

Categories: Administration, House

    Comments

  1. The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.

    As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.

    The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.

    Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
    The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billion over a decade does not matter.
    No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !

    THANK YOU !

    Posted by: hsr0601 Author Profile Page | July 25, 2009 1:32 PM

Post A Comment


(for verification only; will not be published with your comment)