Weekend Editorial Roundup
Here are the highlights from this weekend’s editorials on fiscal and budget policy:
The New York Times argued that the temporarily higher federal matching for state Medicaid funds should continue past the end of next year, when the higher matching rates are set to expire. They claimed that this would be a good way to help states' budgets and will help the increased numbers of poor people who currently rely on Medicaid for healthcare.
The Financial Times called on Congress to act on the recommendations that will be made by President Obama's fiscal commission, hoping that the commission can act as political cover for a bipartisan agreement. They also criticized the fact that the commission had to be created in the first place by Executive Order rather than by Congressional statute.
The Washington Post recommended that Congress try to pass a less ambitious healthcare reform bill rather than going for broke. A bill that "cherry-picks" what they argue are the best provisions, such as the Medicare commission, Medicaid expansion, and encouraging health insurance exchanges, would show that "Washington can tackle a serious problem and reach some degree of bipartisan agreement."
The New York Times said that anything short of a total overhaul of the financial system would be inadequate. They specifically criticized Senate Republicans for halting a financial reform bill in the Senate, arguing that this would create the opportunity for "piecemeal reform" that banks and other financial institutions would be able to avoid. The Times wants any reform bill to regulate derivatives and allow regulators to break up too-big-to-fail institutions.
What's Next
-
Image
-
Image
-
