Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2007 12:00 am
As promised, George Bush used only the fourth veto of his presidency to derail a bill to expand health-insurance coverage for children.
As promised, Democrats 7 and more than a few of Republicans 7 vowed a veto override vote next week.
If you smell a political rat here, your olfactory abilities are right on target.
In announcing his veto of the State Children/s Health Insurance Program bill last Wednesday, the president said it was a matter of either helping the nation/s poor and some middle-class families vs. increasing the size and cost of government. Bush came down on the side of the latter.
There is more than a little political irony here. The president is making a stretch drive toward the 2008 presidential election, hoping to help Republican candidates by demonstrating typical, conservative fiscal restraint. Unfortunately, that effort comes about six years too late.
President Bush/s two terms in the White House have been characterized by chronic budget deficits, caused in large part by spending on a war that can/t be won, and almost nonstop increased spending on other federal programs and services. All very un-Republican-like.
President Bush/s efforts to paint his administration as fiscally responsible would be laughable 7 if his latest move wasn/t so harmful to such a large number of Americans.
The State Children/s Health Insurance Program actually expired last month, but has been extended into November. It is managed by states, using federal guidelines, and serves just more than 6 million children nationwide.
Unfortunately, there are another estimated 9 million children who could be covered by such a program, but are not, because of funding and other restrictions. The bill passed by Congress, and vetoed last week by Bush would have extended the umbrella of insurance protection over most of that vulnerable group.
The Bush administration/s objections are based on the fact that coverage would be extended to families earning ,60,000 a year, which is about three times the national poverty level. The current law covers families earning up to ,40,000 annually.
Bush insists such health coverage should be provided by the private sector. Our question is this: If the private sector is so adept and efficient at providing health-care coverage, why are 9 million American kids not covered?
If this political tug-of-war continues 7 and it likely will, because Democrats vow to pass the same kind of bill 7 many of California/s 850,000 children now covered by the state/federal program would lose their protection.
Bush/s objections that the bill approved by Congress extends into the lower middle-class, indicates the president obviously feels that group should be able to manage on their ,60,000-a-year family income. That/s a point of view propped up by a life of privilege.
The president clearly does not understand that ,60,000 gets stretched pretty thin in a family trying to make ends meet 7 and at the same time trying to pay the skyrocketing premiums in the private health insurance market.
This dispute is all about gaining the political upper hand come November 2008. And Democrats are just as culpable as Republican hard-liners, because they refuse to work out a compromise to get this important health-care bill approved.
Meanwhile, as the political dogs tear at each other/s throats in the pit, more than 15 million children are dangerously close to having no health-care insurance protection at all. Then there are the 40 million or so adults who lack coverage.
That train is not making whistle stops on the campaign trail 7 it/s headed for a catastrophic derailment.
October 7, 2007