When a reporter writes that a political debate is about ideology they are trying to tell readers that they have no idea what they are talking about. Politicians are not political philosophers. They do not get elected by espousing clever political philosophies. They get elected by making deals with people who can give them the money or produce the votes needed to get elected. When the Washington Post tells us that a debate over extending the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is �is exposing Washington's familiar ideological divisions� get out your bull detector. The article tells us that the ideological battle is over �the proper role of government� with �Democrats generally favoring more activist attempts to ensure that everyone has access and Republicans supporting a more limited role that focuses on helping the neediest.� Anyone who reads through the whole article would discover that the Democrats actually don�t propose spending any more government money on health care than the Republicans. The Democrats want to use the subsidies that the government pays to private insurers in the Medicare program to extend coverage under the SCHIP program. Why are government subsidies to private insurers not �activist,� but payments to provide health care for kids are? We�re just talking about using government money to help different groups of people. The Post�s editors should pull this nonsense out of articles. Just report the policies and don�t try to tell us what politicians believe � the reporters don�t know, and it wouldn�t matter in any case. Politicians do what is necessary to advance their careers. Their personal beliefs (if they have any) have nothing to do with their work. By the way, this article also engages in the Washington fraternity practice of reporting budget numbers in a way that means almost nothing to anyone. For example, it reports that it would take $13 to $15 billion above current funding levels to keep the same number of children funded over the next five years. Wow!!!! Is this a lot of money? Is this a little money? Does anyone reading this article have any idea? Well it�s about 0.1 percent of projected spending over this period, with the annual cost being about 2 weeks of funding for the Iraq War. Alternatively, the cost would be about $10 per year in taxes for every person in the United States. Is it that hard for Post reporters to write budget numbers in a way that might be meaningful beyond the 50 budget wonks who live this stuff?
-- Dean Baker