From the Washington Post editorial board this Sunday:
OPTIMISM THAT the District’s federally funded school voucher program will be allowed to flourish is fading. Leading Democrats say that they are open to letting new students enter the program, but efforts to make that a reality seem to have stalled. Indeed, it appears that some Democrats’ idea of saving the program is simply to let it slowly wither away.
The future of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which gives low-income parents up to $7,500 so their children can attend private school, will be determined within the next weeks as Congress decides appropriations bills. What’s on the table is a proposal advanced by President Obama that would extend the program until the 1,700 students currently receiving vouchers have graduated from high school. But no new students would be accepted.
We have a hard time understanding the president’s logic. The argument for discontinuation is that the program has not proved to be effective. Why then come up with millions of dollars to continue it for the next 12 years? Besides, scientific studies have shown clear benefits in terms of parental satisfaction and improved student reading. Why deny these advantages to new students?
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and a majority of the D.C. Council favor letting in new students. Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee has been working behind the scenes to win support for a proposal that would allow new students to be admitted to slots vacated by those exiting the program. She believes that it will be at least five years before the public schools will be at a point where they will provide the right alternative for all parents.
Key to the program’s future are Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), who head important appropriations subcommittees. Spokesmen for the two men assured us “no final deal” has been reached. We’ll continue to hope that they will allow a worthwhile educational program to serve children who desperately need help.
Here is the link to the study showing that the vouchers work. Specifically the study found:
One subgroup that made notable improvement was the first group of applicants to the program, or 21 percent of the treatment group. Students in this subgroup who were offered or used scholarships made gains in reading achievement that were the equivalent of 14.1 and 18.9 months, respectively, of additional learning—a gain that is approximately 1.5 to two school years of learning. These are the students who have been in the program the longest and have had the greatest opportunity to benefit from their parents’ choice.
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post called out the Senate for trying to hide the true cost of Obamacare. Now they say the House “plays make-believe, but the bill to taxpayers is real.” Read the whole thing:
HAVING PASSED a health reform bill that is, at least theoretically, paid for, the House of Representatives is poised this week to blow a quarter-trillion-dollar hole in the federal budget involving, you guessed it, health care. This is the so-called doc fix, to prevent scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians from taking effect.
Say you are a member of Congress who agrees that the cuts should be rescinded — that physician payments shouldn’t be reduced, that is — but also believes that the payments should not add to the national debt? Under the rule governing the House debate, you won’t be allowed to suggest any offsetting savings. Either you go for the doc fix and add massively to the deficit, or you torpedo the fix and wreak havoc in the Medicare program, with a 21 percent cut set to take effect Jan 1. Nice choice. It puts those who believe in both fiscal responsibility and averting these draconian cuts in an impossible situation.
By the way, don’t be fooled by the incredible shrinking “cost” of the fix. The official Congressional Budget Office estimate used to be $245 billion over 10 years. Now it’s $210 billion. In fact, the real hit to the budget will be closer to $300 billion. The lower CBO numbers stem primarily from the administration’s move to change the rules about which physician payments are subject to the cuts. The administration proposed a regulation to exempt drugs administered in doctor’s offices, such as chemotherapy, from the spending ceiling. That has the effect of making the cost of the fix look smaller, but it doesn’t change the ultimate drain on the treasury: Medicare will end up paying out the same amount of money.
All of this is, to some degree, Medicare kabuki to placate the American Medical Association. The Senate doesn’t have the votes to pass a permanent fix without paying for it — though, of course, it also doesn’t have the votes actually to pay for it. So while the House might pass the unpaid-for fix, it will likely die there. The result will be another year-long, or possible two-year, patch slapped on this mess. Finding the money to pay for the fix and, more to the point, cobbling together the political coalition to support it, is difficult. Which is why Congress and the administration have joined hands in the pretense that the doc fix has nothing whatsoever to do with health reform.