I never ever thought I'd say this, but I'm with Ted Kennedy on this one.
This current Medicare expansion effort has produced some of the most puzzling politics you're ever likely to see. I find myself amazed to agree with Kennedy, Pelosi, et al, who want to block the Medicare bill--though not for the same reason they want to block it. The AARP is, amazingly, siding with Bush, who clearly wants passage of the bill, over Kennedy, who clearly wants to block it--though they still are not speaking the president's name despite his efforts on their behalf.

Now for my opinion of the particular merits of the bill, from the perspective of an actual end user, I'm inclined to defer to the "expert consumers" of the product of the bill, the AARP. They seem to like it. But the Wall Street Journal, for example, keeps complaining about expanding the benefit without sufficient fundamental reform to a program which is rapidly becoming utterly unaffordable in its current state; whatever fundamental reforms are contained in the bill are basically token gestures which, as I understand it, allow for seniors to opt into a competing private plan, only at their own choice, and only in 2010.

So the AARP likes it, conservatives don't like it, and yet Daschle and Kennedy think it's a "lemon" of a bill (Daschle's word). Daschle is a typically cynical politician, and here he is opposing something one of his most reliable constituencies is supporting. He's either so opposed to the notion of competition that the mere mention of the word, even in a token gesture context, makes him immediately curl up into a defensive fetal position and vote NO, or he's actually maneuvering to try to deny President Bush a domestic agenda victory which Republicans could use in 2004 as a model of how Republicans Get Results, even results for a core Democratic issue. As politicians include temporary, far future provisions in bills all the time, intending all along to change them before they actually happen (think of the ludicrous sunset provisions in year ten of the recent tax cuts), I'd bet on the explanation which is motivated entirely by 2004 electoral politicking.

So why do I oppose the bill, since it's clearly not for the same reason Kenndy and Daschle do? Simple: Medicare and Social Security already consume in excess of one-third of the Federal budget, and are projected to get horribly and unsustainably bigger all on their own. It's not sound in the long run already; despite the terrible political consequences of it, at some point we have to be serious about it, and differentiate our nation from Europe in our response to a social entitlement which so far outstrips our ability to pay for it. The Europeans preserve these programs, and politicians earnestly assure each other and their constituents that of course reducing the free money everyone gets from the government can't be reduced. This is one element of why European economic growth and productivity growth are embarrassed by comparison to the US.

At some point, preferably sooner than later, we should recognize that difficult and unpopular decisions will be necessary. Medicare is already horribly expensive and inefficient, and extending another free benefit (conservatively, almost laughably, estimated at some $400 Billion over ten years, but most analysts expect it will be much more, myself included) as part of this program is the very last thing we should be considering.

And--Tom Daschle take note--though it is rather impolitic to observe, this expensive free benefit is being granted to a demographic group--seniors--who have the highest average net worth of any demographic group in America. It's almost a little surprising that Redistributionist Daschle wants to give such a giveaway to--quite literally--The Wealthiest Americans, if only they could get those darned competition provisions out of it. Or it would be surprising, if anything he did were really on principle instead of just based on electoral propitiousness.

Now, truly, I'm greatly disappointed in Bush for pushing so hard to pass this. His tax cuts have certainly helped the economy, but on the spending side he is proving to be no fiscal conservative (and his free trade credentials are lagging as well). This entirely unaffordable benefit is clearly a sop to an electorally critical demographic, in an attempt to buy votes in 2004. And Daschle's, Kennedy's, and Pelosi's opposition to it is every bit as cynically an attempt to cost Bush senior citizens' votes next year's election.

The politics on both sides of this debate could kindly be called disappointing, at generous best. The actual merits of the bill are awful, based on our ability to afford it, and for once here's hoping Daschle will follow through on his threats of a filibuster. This bill is not only bad, but dangerously bad, and it needs to be defeated. I just hope the Democrats' cynicism is able to trump the Republicans' cynicism on this one.

JKS.