Yep, the President said he would veto the bipartisan bill and he did it without even having the guts to call a Press conference and do so in the public eye — he vetoed the bill from the comfort of the Oval Office with the door closed…
Here’s the “skinny” from the Associated Press (Yahoo! News):
Bush vetoes child health insurance plan
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children’s health insurance.
It was only the fourth veto of Bush’s presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year’s elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush’s action as a “heartless veto.”
“Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people,” Reid said in a statement. “By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children’s Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. ”
Bush cast his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. …” [emphasis mine]
As you can see, President Bush vetoed this bill for all of the wrong reasons — typical conservatism, where the disadvantaged child can pull himself “up by the bootstraps”, get a job after “skewell” selling lemonade or washing windshields on the streets, and provide their OWN health insurance for themselves — i.e., “survival of the fittest”. Absolutely DISGUSTING.
That said, I’m all FOR this veto, and the reason why is very simple: cigarette smokers have been picked on long enough as has “Big Tobacco”. The funding of the program was discriminatory and targeted a SMALL group of Americans to pay for the whole thing. I truly doubt the funding source could have stood up to a class action lawsuit by smokers when there are plenty of OTHER “sin tax” sources to go after such as alcohol, junk food, or, we could SHOULD legalize marijuana and use a tax on it to fund such a program. When you punish a small group of people by raising the price on their habit, you discourage use of that product, which would have an immediate “shrinking” effect on the revenue source, not to mention, AGAIN — it was a bad idea in the first place to select just a targeted group of folks to pay for the entire thing.
Shame (again) on President Bush. Had he vetoed this bill and shoved it back to Congress so they could widen their “sin tax” audience to include MOST Americans, I’d be applauding him, but he didn’t. Instead, the swipe of his mighty pen did nothing more than to emphasize the UGLY side of PURE CAPITALISM and the people who endorse such a gross division of wealth between the “haves” and the “have nots” in our country. And while I’m at it, the funding source of the bill itself serves to emphasize the UGLY side of “Nanny Stater”, “We are the Government and we are going to save the poor, mislead cigarette smokers from themselves” side of neoliberalism, too…
BOTH groups are a great danger to their countrymen and women, in my NOT-so-humble opinion.
***
A big thanks goes to The New York Times for quoting this article
Some other blogger opinions — H/T to MemeOrandum: Pam’s House Blend; The Carpetbagger Report
Loading ...
2:47 pm on October 3rd, 2007 1
[...] President Bush Vetos Health Insurance For Lower-Income Children – Right Move, Wrong Reasons » This Summary is from an article posted at The Gun Toting Liberal™ — Slightly left of center… [...]
4:11 pm on October 3rd, 2007 2
“cigarette smokers have been picked on long enough as has “Big Tobacco”.
not long enough, imho. cry me a river bro.
::cough::
Sorry GTL, but if yer gonna punch yerself in the nuts two or three times a day, don’t complain about infertility either- I have no sympathy for people who voluntarily give up their free will and health to be slaves of a highly addictive , consortium controlled product.
And just remember how many non-smokers in the actuarial sense pay for those O2 bottles for Emphysema patients. Not to mention the unscrupulous tactics of RJR, et al and the spawns of Satan that circle the Beltway as post-hoc advisors and consultants. I highly suggest you watch “Thank you for smoking”.
Were it up to me I’d burn every tobacco field and plant soy or some other more healthy, life giving substance.
8:58 pm on October 3rd, 2007 3
The problem with self-righteous indignation about smoking is that a double standard is applied. On the one hand, smokers are the 21st century version of Jews in Nazi Germany, in that the castigation and de-humanizing increases over time. It has reached the ridiculous stage whereby tobacco is a legal product but the use of it is becoming a crime.
On the other hand, while blasting the tobacco companies as “merchants of death” may satisfy many peoples’ quest for doing good in this world, it is NOT borne in mind that roughly 80 to 90% of the sale price of tobacco goes to the state or federal governments. So who gains most from this deadly product? The VERY people who constantly condemn it.
I agree with HinJohny to the extent that tobacco should simply be banned, period. Let us have total prohibition on the sale and possesion of this product so as to match the prohibition of its use.
It is indeed high time punitive taxes be placed on fast foods, alcohol, and the like. I’m offended by the legions of butterballs coming out of the schools…free of tobacco and heading straight for type II diabetes.
I agree with GTL in that the president’s veto was wrong based upon the “principles” he claims to adhere to. He could indeed have used some imagination (which doesn’t exist) to broaden the income base for this program. As for the Democrats, they have the chutzpah to claim to represent the “litle guy” when in fact they have no qualms about transferring wealth from the lower income groups to the higher.
Also, the interested
9:02 am on October 4th, 2007 4
This is in no way meant to insult you GTL, just that I think using smokers seems to be an easy, but thin example. I for one don’t hate people who smoke, I hate the weakness in them that leads them to it.
11:31 am on October 4th, 2007 5
Selling lemonade after “skewell” for health care… awesome imagery! LOL
Smokers have become a convenient target for fundraising. The fact is, that since the big settlements, politicians have become as addicted to the taxation and litigation income from cigarettes as the smokers are to the products. Nevermind that those funds are often misused, essentially making liars out of states’ attorneys general, whose arguments in court were that the money would be used for reimbursement and health initiatives.
I am a casual (buy a pack every few weeks) smoker who’s voted for tax increases and public smoking restrictions, but I don’t make the connection between SCHIP and smoking. Where do I make that connection? How about a windfall tax on Big Pharma and Insurance Execs?
11:37 am on October 4th, 2007 6
and just as an aside, it has been working well here in NY and NJ, which has prompted both governors to sue Pres. Bush over this. His ol’ buddy Pataki was a proponent of ChildHealth Plus ( what they called it here in NY). This has been going for 10 years, and people whine about sin tax targeting now??? Where else will the money for this block grant program come from- oh I know, lets go after the people who spend 20% of their paycheck on lottery tickets- err wait that’s already going to schools, never mind.
Maybe an alternative compromise- take the top earners who are skating on the estate tax ( no it’s not a “death” tax,lol much that Bush and Co mislead you to believe in the 04 election cycle) and feed the money into that.
boy i’m grumpy this week.
4:58 am on October 6th, 2007 7
[...] health plan for kids felled by veto …Blogged about at President Bush Vetos Health Insurance For Lower-Income Children – Right Move, Wrong Reasons – the g…, President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of children’s health insurance, and [...]
10:20 am on October 21st, 2007 8
[...] NOT too expensive as long as we can finance the debacle in Iraq, I say. I will point out, I did OPPOSE the latest attempt by Congress to provide health care to needy children, not for [...]
10:44 am on October 21st, 2007 9
I don’t call $80,000 low income. The president did the right thing for the right reason
11:52 am on October 22nd, 2007 10
that’s 80k combined- which means each parent making 40k average- that’s lower middle class salary range here in NY. Add 2-3 kids and the budget gets tretched tight.
4:35 pm on October 28th, 2007 11
[...] the GUN TOTING LIBERAL had a piece about the SCHIP veto by President Bush, with a subtitle RIGHT MOVE, WRONG REASON. He makes a good point; one that I wish to expand upon. In the manner of pointing out hypocrisy any [...]