WASHINGTON – Democrats are troubled by the inconsistency of Republican lawmakers who approved a major Medicare expansion six years ago that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits, but oppose current health overhaul plans.

All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats.

The Democrats claim that their plan moving through Congress now will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and they cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.

Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward." She noted that she fought unsuccessfully to offset some of President George W. Bush's deep tax cuts at the time.

But for now, she said, "it's a question of what's in this package," which the Senate passed Thursday in a party-line vote. The Senate bill still must be reconciled with a House version.

The political situation is different now, Snowe said, because "we're in a tough climate and people are angry and frustrated."

Some conservatives have no patience with such explanations.

"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."

Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."

The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years.

Other lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Eleven Democratic senators voted with them back then.

The 2003 vote in the House was even more divisive. It resulted in a nearly three-hour roll call in which GOP leaders put extraordinary pressure on colleagues to back the prescription drug addition to Medicare. In the end, 204 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted for the bill.

Democrats certainly have indulged in deficit spending over the years. They say they have been more responsible over the last two decades, however. Bill Clinton's administration was largely constrained by a pay-as-you-go law, requiring most tax cuts or program expansions to be offset elsewhere with tax increases and spending cuts.

Clinton ended his presidency with a budget surplus. But it soon was wiped out by a sagging economy, the Iraq war, GOP tax cuts and the lapsing of the pay-as-you-go restrictions.

Obama and many Democrats in Congress have vowed to restore those restrictions. But they waived them this year for programs, including heavy stimulus spending meant to pull the economy from the severe recession of 2008-09.

The 2010 deficit is expected to reach $1.5 trillion, and the accumulated federal debt now exceeds $12 trillion. When the Republican-led Congress passed the Medicare expansion in 2003, the deficit was $374 billion and projected to hit $525 billion the following year, in part because of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091226/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_defic
it;_ylt=AlZnv.9aoX2sqIUsrr.JXDhv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTNiNHBvYjUyBGFzc2V0A2
FwLzIwMDkxMjI2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX2RlZmljaXQEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYX
IEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZ29wbGF3bWFrZXJz

The hypocrites!

That's politics! Whatever happens is ok as long as that OTHER GUY didn't think of it first.

Moral of the story: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

This is so false it's laughable. The "surplus" was nothing more than a projection (which failed to materialize). Besides, the Republicans held both houses of Congress for most of the Clinton years, so any "good" that occurred during that time is more attributable to gridlock-which allowed the private sector to do more (not to mention Greenspan's absurd policies which contributed greatly to the artificial boom of the 90s).

As Dr Gary North said of the Clinton "surplus", "It was achieved by raiding the Social Security trust fund, issuing non-marketable IOU’s, and not calling these IOU’s an official obligation of the U.S. government, and hence not part of the deficit."

The More We Spend The More we will save... and fredom isnt free.... and the goverment works for you


Oh Yeah and the Checks in the mail

Gotta love the misleading title.

The problem is that it's not just the Medicare expansion involved in the bill that the Republicans have a problem with.

It's the added taxes and other costs as well.

There was a Surplus in the budget during Clintons Presidency.

The title isn't misleading. You just have to comprehend the truth, and quit buying into the misinformation campaign generated by the Republican Party!!

Try to think deeper!

Why are Public Hospital's ER overcrowded?

Because people without Insurance can't afford a Dr. visit for preventative care. So they wait until their illness is so bad they need to seek help.
Knowing that they can't be turned away because of inability to pay they go to the ER.

How are the public hospitals able to treat them if they can't pay?

Figure that out and you may be on the way to understand how this bill can save the tax-payers money.
Mind that you consider the extra cost of an ER visit as opposed to a Dr visit, and how much preventative med is cheaper than last min corrective health care.

If your able to comprehend that then imagine this is only a small part in the saving process.

GOP/DNC same chit, different name.

Dang, I wish I could see every scenario that would have folks goin' to the ER. I guess only a handful are privy to that info. Only thing is, there aren't any stats or reliable references to prove the point.

Move along folks. Hearsay and opinion. No facts.

Here its mostly illegals that fill the ER's!

I'm not a republican, I'm an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. (calling me a Republican is speaking fightin words! ) You are again wrong about the Clinton budget. The Republicans were in charge of congress during the "surplus" era anyways-and since Congress in charge of spending, your assertion makes zero sense. Not that the Republicans were actually serious about it-they were just opposing Clinton. When the Republicans were in charge during the Bush II era, they took a bad situation and made it even worse. History repeats itself every election cycle, yet the dumbed-down electorate never learns. Thank you, Department of Education!

The reasons for overcrowding vary by region. The reasons you list are only a small part of the picture. There's also the pathetic American diet, gov'ment subsidized health care (all subsidies cause shortages of supply), etc.

Yes. The title IS misleading.

Mainly because you purport that the Medicare expansion is THE reason for the Republicans voting against the bill.

You talk about a " misinformation campaign ". What about the ones by the Dems that say this bill is " What America wants " when there are numerous polls showing that the American people agree that there should be reform, but this isn't the way to go about it?

Oh yeah. You just completely disregard those because they don't agree with your ideas.

You dismiss it as " misinformation ". But, the Dems can be accused of the same misinformation because a poll can be made to say anything at all depending on how the questions are phrased and who is asked.

I will disagree with this on one point that I am personally involved in.

The Government has been subsidizing the sugar industry for quite some time.

There has been no movement, until this year, in the price of sugar. For the last 20 plus years, the price didn't fluctuate more than a few cents per hundred weight.

There were also no shortages whatsoever despite the candy makers claims to the contrary.

This year, there actually is a bit of a shortage which is raising prices and actually making our business more profitable.

You Reeeeeeeeeeeeally need to get a date Glen, I am concerned that you are gonna pop a bolt and run amok pal. Really.