Bill Manzi.com

The Bush Administration continues to battle the Congress over the federal program to insure children. The latest escalation comes via new administrative rules promulgated by the Administration to limit participation in the program. (See my previous posts on SCHIP) The Washington Post reports on the new rules:

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level — or $51,625 for a family of four — must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state must also demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children’s health insurance program or Medicaid — a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

The Administration’s goal is to stop the spread of the program, which it considers to be a mortal threat in the long term to private insurers. SCHIP was begun in 1997.

SCHIP was created in 1997 to help insure children whose families earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford insurance on their own. It serves about 6.6 million children annually, but will expire at the end of September if Congress does not reauthorize it.

As Congress look to expand the program upon re-authorization the Bush Administration and the right (see the Wall Street Journal editorial page) have drawn a line in the sand. The Administration’s position was articulated by Dennis Smith.

We would not expect any effect on current enrollees from this review strategy,” Smith wrote. He added that this focus on “the core uninsured targeted low-income population” will strengthen the program, known as SCHIP.

But the critics are lining up.

Cindy Mann, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University, said they “would effectively foreclose the opportunity for states to cover children in families with incomes of about $40,000 to $50,000 a year, depending on the size of family.”

Rahmn Emanuel, a former Clinton staffer and now Congressman, said:

“States want to get these kids enrolled, and they will get them enrolled,” said Emanuel, who helped create the program as a staff member in the Clinton administration. “I think states will see the letter for what it is, and that’s a political ploy by the president. This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states.”

And so the political tug of war continues over program re-authorization. Look for a tremendous political struggle over this, which very well may be the first salvo in a long political fight over health care. Read the Post article at this link.

As predicted here some time ago Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday. Romney took some late heat for all of the spending he has done, (according to some estimates over $800 per vote) but the outcome vaults him into the top tier of Republicans vying for the nomination. Romney has really run a strong campaign in Iowa, and it is reflected in his standing for the caucuses. The Washington Post reports

The former governor leads in all recent scientific polls of the state, including a Washington Post-ABC News poll in late July. When Iowa Republicans were asked which candidate had worked hardest in their state, Romney, at 49 percent, was their overwhelming choice.
With Guiliani and McCain not participating Romney was denied a chance to defeat his main rivals Saturday, but their absence has been widely attributed to the imminent Romney victory. And ignoring the straw poll does run some political risk for the Rudy and McCain. A Tommy Thompson voter put it this way:

Barb and Craig Damerval drove 2 1/2 hours from Winfield to Ames to support former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson. Craig Damerval, a corrections officer, said he was impressed by Thompson’s visits to “every one” of Iowa’s 99 counties. “I think that’s super,” he said.

Why, Damerval asked Saturday, would he and his wife support someone “if they don’t come and show their interest in Iowa?”

Tommy Thompson has dropped out of the race based on his sixth place finish here, and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee finished second.

Read the Post article here.

The Wall Street Journal published an outstanding article on the benefits of pre-school on Thursday. The article focused on the political movement towards pre-school, and the benefits that pre-school has. Both Florida and Oklahoma have started providing free pre-school, with Illinois and New York poised to do the same. What is the political argument being made?

Their winning pitch: Making pre-K as prevalent as kindergarten is a prudent investment. Early schooling, they say, makes kids more likely to stay in school and turn into productive taxpayers.

This political movement has some unlikely supporters. Art Rolnick is the research director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota. He has compiled some interesting stats and made some interesting comments.

“Politicians have a choice to make. They can do things like build sports stadiums that offer virtually no economic return, or they can invest in early education programs with a 16% rate of return,” says Art Rolnick, the Minneapolis Fed official, who came up wih that number after reviewing a three decade study of youngsters growing up in Ypsilanti, Mich.

Rolnick is not alone. In Oklahoma free pre-school is available to all four year olds and has been since 1998. George Kaiser, owner of Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. of Tulsa, has committed about $20 million of his family foundation’s money to early education. Why the commitment?

He says he got interested in the issues about eight years ago as he became “more and more frustrated that all of the billions of dollars we were throwing at the problem of endemic poverty was having little demonstrable impact.”

And what about Republican opposition?

“The most effective argument among conservative Republicans is that the folks we are helping are already in day care so that we are not taking them from a loving home,” he says. “The kids… will end up as productive citizens rather than in the correctional system.”

Pew Charitable Trusts has also gotten involved. Susan Urahn, the new director of Education for Pew, pointed out to her board (to prompt involvement) that

Three long term studies suggested that children who went to pre-school were less likely to be held back in higher grades and more likely to graduate.

The earlier quote from Rolnick talked about a specific “rate of return”. How did he arrive at that number? Rolnick turned to a 1962 study conducted in Ypsilanti, Miss.

Mr Rolnick and a colleague crunched the data, calculating that for every $1 invested in pre-school. there was a $16 return from lower crime. fewer welfare payments, and higher earnings.

Some pretty staggering stats. A 2004 policy paper cited in the Journal article estimated that

extending preschool to the four million children under 5 then living under the poverty line would produce a net benefit to the economy of more than $511 billion.

The Journal article was well done and a must read for early education advocates. Republican opposition was mute, and Deval Patrick was cited for his committment in this area. Will Massachusetts follow Oklahoma and Florida? Should we? I believe that the time is now for a renewed political effort in Massachusetts on this issue.