sisyphusshrugged (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sisyphusshrugged) wrote2003-06-14 09:36 am
sisyphusshrugged) wrote2003-06-14 09:36 am
Just in time for the Saturday papers
Several Democratic members of Congress yesterday called for the suspension of a bureaucratic adjustment that will likely increase college costs for millions of families.
Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, introduced legislation to stop the new rules, while Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, promised to put forward a bill of his own. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said he would do the same if President Bush did not "stop this change dead in its tracks."
Late last month, the Education Department altered the formula used to determine how the vast majority of the nation's $90 billion in financial aid is distributed.
The changes, made within the department's statutory authority but without public input, are expected to reduce the government's contribution to higher education by hundreds of millions of dollars, tighten access to billions more in state and institutional grants and shrink the pool of students who qualify for federal awards.
what do we hear from Rep. Pelosi, the fire-breathing liberal who Rep. Harold Ford (D-Rep) warned us about during the process of choosing a minority leader?
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said the department should explain "what these bureaucratic changes will mean to families trying to send their children to college," and that any flaws in the logic governing them must be "corrected."
Go ice down your fingers. I'll wait.
At the heart of the changes, which take effect in the fall of 2004, is a modification to the amount of state and local taxes that families can deduct when calculating how much discretionary income they have left over for college.
Even though state and local taxes have risen over the last year, the department cut the deduction this year, by more than half in some cases. On paper, at least, that leaves families with more money for tuition and other education expenses...
The best quote about this story wasn't actually in this article.
Apparently the Education Department made this administrative change because they wanted to adhere more closely to the Spirit of the law, that apparently _not_ being "wouldn't it be nice if we educated people who weren't rich?"
-----
Members of Congress said today that a bill to add prescription drug benefits to Medicare would give employers a powerful incentive to curtail the drug coverage that they now provide to retired workers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 37 percent of retired employees with employer-sponsored coverage would lose it under the bill, which the Senate Finance Committee approved on Thursday.
The bill is scheduled to reach the Senate floor next week, after winning the endorsement of the committee, 16 to 5.
"The legislation has tremendous momentum," Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the senior Democrat on the panel, said. "It's going to pass. It's going to be enacted. The president is going to sign it."
Mr. Baucus said that the 37 percent figure was shocking and that he and his colleagues would try to reduce it.
"Some senators," he said, "were a little surprised at the percentage of retirees that would be dropped from employer-sponsored coverage in the event this bill were to pass as written."
The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, said the retirees who would lose coverage accounted for 11 percent of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Employers have been cutting retirees' health benefits, including medicines, because of soaring costs. Budget experts and members of Congress said employers would be tempted to drop drug coverage for two reasons. Under the Senate bill, they said, Medicare would offer outpatient drug benefits, so some employers might see less reason to do so. More significant, the critics said, is a provision that appears to penalize retirees who receive drug coverage from former employers.
Under the bill, Medicare would cover 90 percent of drug costs after a beneficiary had spent $3,700 "out of pocket," the amount needed, with the new Medicare coverage, to obtain $5,800 worth of medicine. But payments by an insurance plan or a former employer would not be included in that computation.
So a person with drug benefits under an employer's group health plan would find it difficult to qualify for the catastrophic coverage offered under the Senate bill.
Unions oppose that provision. Alan V. Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, said that the bill "would make millions of retirees worse off by encouraging companies to drop their prescription drug coverage for senior citizens."
Drug benefits under the bill would be much less comprehensive than those provided by many private employers, Mr. Reuther said.
-----
Like many school districts, Mamaroneck already is attacking drinking and drug use among younger students in several ways. The substance abuse prevention program DARE starts in elementary school. The issue is also covered in health education classes in middle school. And there are discussion groups for eighth graders.
An anonymous survey conducted last year at Hommocks Middle School showed that alcohol and marijuana use roughly doubles in seventh grade and doubles again in eighth grade.
Some context (last item).
Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, introduced legislation to stop the new rules, while Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, promised to put forward a bill of his own. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said he would do the same if President Bush did not "stop this change dead in its tracks."
Late last month, the Education Department altered the formula used to determine how the vast majority of the nation's $90 billion in financial aid is distributed.
The changes, made within the department's statutory authority but without public input, are expected to reduce the government's contribution to higher education by hundreds of millions of dollars, tighten access to billions more in state and institutional grants and shrink the pool of students who qualify for federal awards.
what do we hear from Rep. Pelosi, the fire-breathing liberal who Rep. Harold Ford (D-Rep) warned us about during the process of choosing a minority leader?
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said the department should explain "what these bureaucratic changes will mean to families trying to send their children to college," and that any flaws in the logic governing them must be "corrected."
Go ice down your fingers. I'll wait.
At the heart of the changes, which take effect in the fall of 2004, is a modification to the amount of state and local taxes that families can deduct when calculating how much discretionary income they have left over for college.
Even though state and local taxes have risen over the last year, the department cut the deduction this year, by more than half in some cases. On paper, at least, that leaves families with more money for tuition and other education expenses...
The best quote about this story wasn't actually in this article.
Apparently the Education Department made this administrative change because they wanted to adhere more closely to the Spirit of the law, that apparently _not_ being "wouldn't it be nice if we educated people who weren't rich?"
-----
Members of Congress said today that a bill to add prescription drug benefits to Medicare would give employers a powerful incentive to curtail the drug coverage that they now provide to retired workers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 37 percent of retired employees with employer-sponsored coverage would lose it under the bill, which the Senate Finance Committee approved on Thursday.
The bill is scheduled to reach the Senate floor next week, after winning the endorsement of the committee, 16 to 5.
"The legislation has tremendous momentum," Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the senior Democrat on the panel, said. "It's going to pass. It's going to be enacted. The president is going to sign it."
Mr. Baucus said that the 37 percent figure was shocking and that he and his colleagues would try to reduce it.
"Some senators," he said, "were a little surprised at the percentage of retirees that would be dropped from employer-sponsored coverage in the event this bill were to pass as written."
The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, said the retirees who would lose coverage accounted for 11 percent of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Employers have been cutting retirees' health benefits, including medicines, because of soaring costs. Budget experts and members of Congress said employers would be tempted to drop drug coverage for two reasons. Under the Senate bill, they said, Medicare would offer outpatient drug benefits, so some employers might see less reason to do so. More significant, the critics said, is a provision that appears to penalize retirees who receive drug coverage from former employers.
Under the bill, Medicare would cover 90 percent of drug costs after a beneficiary had spent $3,700 "out of pocket," the amount needed, with the new Medicare coverage, to obtain $5,800 worth of medicine. But payments by an insurance plan or a former employer would not be included in that computation.
So a person with drug benefits under an employer's group health plan would find it difficult to qualify for the catastrophic coverage offered under the Senate bill.
Unions oppose that provision. Alan V. Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, said that the bill "would make millions of retirees worse off by encouraging companies to drop their prescription drug coverage for senior citizens."
Drug benefits under the bill would be much less comprehensive than those provided by many private employers, Mr. Reuther said.
-----
Like many school districts, Mamaroneck already is attacking drinking and drug use among younger students in several ways. The substance abuse prevention program DARE starts in elementary school. The issue is also covered in health education classes in middle school. And there are discussion groups for eighth graders.
An anonymous survey conducted last year at Hommocks Middle School showed that alcohol and marijuana use roughly doubles in seventh grade and doubles again in eighth grade.
Some context (last item).