Bad Budgeting, Again

MEMBERS OF the House of Representatives have the chance for a do-over, probably today, on one of its most unfortunate votes of last year: a supposed deficit-reduction measure that would achieve its cuts in ways that hurt the poor and reward the powerful.

The House passed this misguided measure 212 to 206 in December; then it squeaked through the Senate, with Vice President Cheney racing back to Washington to cast a tie-breaking vote. But Senate Democrats invoked a procedural maneuver that stripped several minor provisions from the budget agreement, requiring the House to again vote on the measure. Hence, the opportunity for a do-over.

The odds, we recognize, are against any change in the outcome. That's unfortunate. Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) has announced that he will switch his vote to no, but other Republican defectors will be required to prevent repassage. So why should anyone who voted for the budget package last time around oppose it now?

The measure was unfairly skewed to begin with. Reports since the initial vote -- one by The Post's Jonathan Weisman, the second by the Congressional Budget Office -- only underscore its unfairness.

Much of the package doesn't consist of cuts at all but of money raised by devices such as selling off the broadcast spectrum. To the extent that there are cuts, they lean too heavily on the poor. Of the cuts, $6.9 billion would come from Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people, and an additional $2.6 billion from child support enforcement, foster care, and payments for the elderly and disabled. By contrast, farm subsidy payments would be shaved by just $1 billion.

The Post story described how last-minute, behind-closed-doors changes in the budget agreement saved the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next decade. Although the Senate version of the measure would have saved the government $26 billion during that time by changing the formula for reimbursing health maintenance organizations that participate in Medicare, the final version eliminated all but $4 billion of the projected savings.

The CBO study assessed the effects of the Medicaid changes, which would allow states to impose higher co-payments and premiums on Medicaid beneficiaries. It projected that the increased costs would prompt thousands of beneficiaries to forgo medical care or to drop out of the program entirely because of their inability to afford premiums.

Consider the totality of the budget package, add in these two reports, and you have to ask yourself: Does this package really represent the right priorities? Republican moderates prepared to hold their noses and vote for this stinker again ought to reconsider.