The New S-CHIP, The Same Ram Job

The Democrats have introduced a new version of S-CHIP that they hope can garner enough Republican support to override a presidential veto. The changes in the details limits childless adults from accessing S-CHIP and it sets a lower ceiling of 300% of the poverty line for eligibility. However, it still contains the regressive smoking tax and still does not account for full funding of the program:

Just one week after failing to override President Bush’s veto, House Democrats will put a new version of their $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to a vote today, hoping that minor changes will win enough Republicans to beat Bush this round.
The new version will underscore that illegal immigrants will not have access to the expanded program. It will ease adults off the program in one year, rather than the two in the vetoed version. And it establishes a firmer eligibility cap at 300 percent of the federal poverty line, just more than $60,000 for a family of four.
The move took Republican leaders by surprise. Bush administration officials yesterday voiced conciliation, suggesting the president could accept legislation that would expand the program by about $20 billion over five years, far bigger than the $5 billion expansion that Bush initially proposed. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has been meeting with House and Senate Republicans, urging them to hold the line against an even larger bill. And Bush continues to oppose the tobacco tax increase that Democrats want to fund the measure.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has been meeting all week with some of the 45 House Republicans who voted for the first bill, looking for ways to win the dozen or so votes that supporters needed to override another veto. But Democratic leaders have yet to reach out to the Republicans who voted against the measure.
“When they need my vote, they don’t even have the courage to ask me for it,” complained Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.), who has suffered through a barrage of advertisements from Democratic allies accusing him of forsaking children.

That’s not the only place in which they lack the courage of their rhetoric. After years of complaining about Republican majority practices (which followed Republican complaints of Democratic majority practices before 1994), Nancy Pelosi promised open debate and reasonable access for the minority. In a well-documented initiative that’s on her Speaker web site, Pelosi promised that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.” She also promised that “Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.”
So what happened today? The debate on HR 3963 will occur under a “closed rule” — which means Republicans can’t offer amendments. The GOP Whip claims that this is the 40th time that rule has been invoked by the majority. Also, the bill got filed last night at 11:25 pm, almost a midnight run, and the House started debating it at 11:20 this morning, just shy of 12 hours after publicizing the text. Most of the people debating this bill havenh’t even read it yet.
This is the New Direction for America promised by the Democrats. They issue bills in the dark of night, refuse to allow real debate and compromise, and force votes on massive spending initiatives without allowing for reasonable review first. That direction leads to irresponsible legislation and hefty bills for taxpayers, regardless of the value of the initiative. If this new S-CHIP proposal has any merit, why are Democrats afraid of real debate and bipartisan effort?

37 thoughts on “The New S-CHIP, The Same Ram Job”

  1. 1) The reason this bill is being funded by a tax on cigarettes is that Republicans will not allow any other type of tax increase.
    2) If Pelosi actually allowed Republican ammendments to this new bill, they would add some poison pill like recommending a bombing run on Iran.
    Pelosi’s mistake was promising Republicans anything to begin with. She should have run the congress exactly like Republicans did to the Democrats.

  2. What’s good for the goose is good for the Gander.
    Republicans earlier this year took advantage of ‘open rules’ periods to use every procedural trick in the book in order to delay or deny passage of bills which have strong minorities. The Dems got tired of putting up with roll call vote after roll call vote, useless votes that merely wasted the taxpayers’ time and money.
    Complain all you like – people won’t care. You think Americans don’t remember who was running the show for the last 12 years in Congress, and how they acted? Please!
    Be honest – what you are afraid of is that the bill will pass with a veto-proof majority. You complain about the tactics used, but what really kills you is that large numbers of YOUR party will vote for it.

  3. If leftists had a real mandate, they’d be able to sell their hard left agenda at face value, in the light of day.
    They can’t. So they engage in one after another pathetic stunt to create the illusion of activity.
    I believe they think we don’t notice.

  4. Perhaps Republicans should use every procedural trick in the book, starting with full quorom votes every half hour. Right there that would grind everything to a halt. And I am sure that Boehnert can find a lot more. He doesn’t need ‘open rules’ periods to run procedural tricks if he so desires.
    The fascists tactics of the left, perfected by many tyrants the world pver, have been studied ruthlessly by the Dem Congress. But if Hillary gets elected she will prove Harry and Nancy as the bumbling incompetents they are when she unleashes her totalitarian tactics.
    And of course teresa makes her nonsensical argument that Republicans won’t allow ‘any’ tax increases. The claim this is such a wonderful bill with all sorts of majorities lining up to vote for it, if true, you’d have the overriding votes easily even with a tax increase.

  5. Regardless of the 300% cap the program was originally intended for low income people and increasing the cap clearly shows it is expanding into areas never intended for by the original legislation else it would have include the new cap not the old one.
    This is clearly mission creep.
    It is really hard in some cases to justify some participants under the program as it is now since it is only means tested and not asset tested. Any further expansion would make the case even less valid.
    President Bush’s position is reasonable in that the GAO released a report that said just to maintain the current program would require funding increases of about 19 billion over the next five years.
    Based on that his proposal would fully fund the program as it but obviously any expansion would require even more funding.
    The figures are out there that show tricks were done in the 5th year projections for the expanded program that claimed costs would drop significantly in the fifth year just to meet the proposed budget increase number. Estimates have shown that the true cost could exceed 100 billion over 5 years if the plan is approved.
    Also the program is funded now without using a highly regressive smokers tax. If they have the obvious shortfall what’s next a liquor tax? Hey here’s an idea how about an abortion tax, after all it’s “for the children”.

  6. This is the New Direction for America promised by the Democrats. They issue bills in the dark of night, refuse to allow real debate and compromise, and force votes on massive spending initiatives without allowing for reasonable review first.
    Is this satire Captain? Your memory seems about on par with one Alberto Gonzales. Let’s revisit some recent history…
    In 2003 the Republicans running congress call for a vote on their Medicare plan at 2:58 a.m. Despite this Democrats prevail by a vote of 216-218, or so it would seem. Republican leadership refuses to gavel the vote closed, the vote stays open until 5:51 a.m. when two Republicans switched their votes giving the Republicans their bill.
    Hmmn dark of night and forcing votes? Oh and about that spending…
    In 2004 a record 3,407 “pork barrel” projects were added to federal budget appropriations bills, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. This is in comparison to just 47 projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of previous Democratic control.
    Debate and compromise?
    September 2005 – Republican leadership in the House limited floor consideration of the $52 billion Katrina relief bill proposed by President Bush and voted to reject any Democratic efforts to amend the bill. No Democrat had even seen a copy of the legislation. Voting along party lines, Republicans denied a measure that would have allowed for two hours of discussion and opened up the measure to be amended.
    Where was this outrage the last 8 years when the Republicans were turning these tactics into a fine art? It’s only now with the Democrats in power that it’s an issue? Were all those bills the Republicans rammed through bipartisan bills with around 70% public approval like SCHIP? Were they all fiscally responsible?
    Look, if you want to decry the use of strong arming the political process fine. But it rings pretty hollow from those partisans who saw nothing wrong with it when they were getting their way.

  7. Dwight,
    You are correct, and this is exactly the reason why the American public doesn’t buy the BS being thrown about by Republicans these days.
    Perhaps you forgot – the earlier version of this bill DID pass in the light of day. Many of your elected Republicans voted for it.

  8. Dwight is obviously a socialist commie pinko to point out such facts. No schrutebucks for you!

  9. We had a ballot issue a year or so ago that did the same thing at the state level – raise cigarette taxes to pay for children’s health care. I voted against it but it passed. My issue is this: if subsidizing children’s health care is something we as a society decide is necessary, why should the burden fall on only part of society? Why should smokers be the only ones to pay for it? Since smokers are in the minority now, it sounds like a lot of people want to pass feel good legislation that other people will have to pay for whether they benefit or not.
    Hardly sounds American to me.

  10. And so it goes…
    “Well, I know it’s not really right, b-b-b-but your side did it too! A-a-a-and your side with do worse things if our side let ’em get away with it! Why should WE play by the rules when your side doesn’t???”
    Happily, this attitude, common among small children and political partisans, doesn’t go so much in the rest of the world. Imagine if police officers, for example, took this attitude:
    “Well, crooks get to kill people without any of that due process crap, so why shouldn’t WE be allowed to?”
    Or judges:
    “There are plenty of judges who take bribes, so I think I should be able to take them, too!”
    Please note that this is not a partisan issue. There are plenty of conservative counterparts to Teresa, Cycloptichorn and dwightkschrute who, if the GOP ever regains control of Congress, will be urging that the dem minority be treated with as little consideration and respect as is humanly possible.
    “What goes around, comes around” and “Payback is a bitch” aren’t good mottos for living, but they are very common ones.

  11. Doc,
    Sorry, but your side deserves to be treated that way. Really.
    Why is it, that Republicans:
    1 – punch their opponents in the face at every opportunity, and then when they lose power,
    2 – recommend that the Dems act with civility and restraint, and then
    3 – expect the Dems not to punch them back?
    Hell with that!
    After you REALLY lose a bunch of seats in 2008, the Republican party might learn the humility needed to be treated with respect. Until then, tough titty.

  12. DocJim says, “There are plenty of conservative counterparts to Teresa, Cycloptichorn and dwightkschrute who, if the GOP ever regains control of Congress, will be urging that the dem minority be treated with as little consideration and respect as is humanly possible.”
    If they regain power…. how about WHEN THEY HAD POWER? The Republicans did everything they could to keep Democrats from influencing legislation during the last few years.
    They have done nothing as the minority party except filibuster every piece of Democratic legislation proposed.
    Elections have consequences. Democrats had a mandate to effect change and they should do whatever they need to do to get change through. Otherwise Republicans will be running ads about a “do-nothing Congress.”

  13. “Tough titty” Brilliant comment.
    Some of the Trolls are right about one thing. Your principled republicans will probably sign off on this expansion of the Nanny State. They’ll sign off on plenty more later on…and they won’t do anything about securing the borders either. Real winners.

  14. Good
    Nice to see you all in usual mode poking each other in the eye and saying Yo Mama.
    Now I addressed the merits and issues with the bill and it’s financing.
    Any of you supposed adults want to discuss the merits of the bill or should I wait for your parents to get here?

  15. Best do some thinking on docjim and larry J,
    it may seem fine to the dems the smokers pay
    for the bill, but I doubt this is a way to do
    it, why don’t you put it on alcohol?
    That would be fine, it would not stop drunken
    drivers, but at least more money would come in, as there is a lot of drinking done in America.
    Think of it, every beer would help some child!
    If you want money, dems, do the brave thing
    and put more tax on the demon rum!
    The games is the same, every time any lib or
    dems lose anthing the cry baby dems, never
    do anything, and like a petulant child blames
    the conservatives. Never been different and
    never will be different.
    They are the ones who have no respect for
    anyone but themselves and have a opinion
    of themselves that is so arrogant, who wants
    to listen to their shallow games?
    They rely on games, spin, lies and then wonder
    why they are losing again.
    If the republicans see the bill is going to
    be good for the children they will vote for it,
    no matter who put it up.
    The liberals don’t care, they just want to win.
    Their “it is for the children” has been used
    to death, even the voters know about this con,
    and it is time they came up with some honesty.

  16. You’re all boxing at political shadows: their political persuasion doesn’t matter. Every bill that is or has been presented to congress in the last yea many administrations has been inflated from the requested total, whoever is in the majority. It’s just become worse and worse as time has passed. They can’t just fund a worthwhile program and call it done; rather, increase is piled on increase, to pacify someone’s re-election funding constituents or to pander to some special interest with pork. I give no credence whatsoever to either side’s claim that the other is responsible for the increased spending we’ve seen lately. Every last one of them is responsible, save for the anti-porkers of each party, who are having about as much luck stopping porky earmarks as Canute had with the tide. The peers of the anti-porkers are so rotted that they won’t even support anti-porkers of their own party. The only way to stop this cycle of out-of-control spending is to vote out incumbents NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PARTY. And to let the winners know that they’d better shape up or suffer the same fate.
    There are so many serious questions and concerns that affect the whole fabric of our society and that this country has to face, discuss and address ASAP, it’s a shame that our two major political parties choose to become bogged down in dead-end, petty ante haggling that provides limited benefit for the common weal.

  17. docjim505 I agree with you completely. This problem will not get solved by looking for or encouraging payback.
    My use of those Republican examples was because I felt just saying “this was a problem when Republicans were in office too” might not get through to some of the true believers here.
    My main point was: why have there been no prior calls to condemn this behavior? It’s only now now that the Democrats are using strong arm tactics they suddenly find their voice. Holding congress accountable to fairness and compromise would be a bit easier if those who supported the party that was in power the last 12 years hadn’t embraced a doctrine of putting partisanship above all. Yet there’s no acknowledgment of this. No attempt to look for ways to make positive change. All I’ve seen is a ratcheting up the rhetoric. The posts like this, the attempts to pin blame on Democrats for having a “do nothing” congress, all the while egregiously ignoring to point out that Republicans are throwing sand in the gears by filibustering at record rates, the beat just goes on.
    If the goal is to improve compromise, reduce partisan division, and create communication, being up front about the culpability of both sides would be helpful.

  18. I don’t think S-CHIP is going to become law. The closed rule use indicates that the democratic leaders don’t expect the republicans to sign on, so they are going to ramming speed on this.
    The problem with ramming speed is that they still need the republicans for a veto-proof majority if the President vetoes. Since they’ve decided they don’t need the republicans, then this is all show, because the President’s veto will stand. Then they can return to their states after the veto and whine about the nasty republicans stealing candy from babies.
    The problem with that approach is that Coburn’s failed amendment is the perfect return weapon to use against the Democrats (“you voted for piglets rather than kids”). That was one brilliant piece of political propaganda by Coburn — it really puts the debate into the correct perspective.

  19. Tobacco and liquor already have some of the highest percentage of retail taxes on them as the “sin tax” already. Piling on an increase of the tobacco tax is somebody trying to go for a twofer one score.
    Fund expansion for the kids and stick it to those nasty smokers.
    As others pointed out that is only a limited section of the population and all will get the benefit with a few being taxed.
    Still none have addressed that if the expansion is approved the funding levels will not be enough to truly fund the program and even worse at the levels specified there are not enough smokers to provide the revenue source. Projections have shown an additional 22 million NEW smokers would be needed to generate the revenue stream.

  20. Quote:”That direction leads to irresponsible legislation and hefty bills for taxpayers, regardless of the value of the initiative.”
    Capn’ Ed you have single handedly summed up, perfectly, every thing the Congress has done for at least the last six years with Dear leader at the Helm. Brilliant.

  21. Also per the revised bill, adults are to be removed after one year from the program. Considering the children insurance in some states consists of over 50% adults should not the cost of the program be reduced since fewer are covered???? Then why is the funding demand static?????

  22. Daytrader,
    When they say ‘adults,’ what age does that go up to?
    I would support 24-25 as that’s the age limits which we currently see on private insurance – intended to cover kids in college.
    Other then that, I don’t think that a children’s health program should cover adults.

  23. swabjockey: Your principled republicans will probably sign off on this expansion of the Nanny State. They’ll sign off on plenty more later on…and they won’t do anything about securing the borders either. Real winners.
    Oh, don’t get me started! If I may try to assume the mantel of a “true conservative”* for a moment, the expansion of the government under President Bush and the past few GOP Congresses has been nothing short of deplorable. In Bush’s case, at least, we had some warning: he ran as a “compassionate conservative”, which set off a few alarm bells here and there as code for “big spending conservative”. The war came along, and conservative concerns about Bush’s big-spending ways got eclipsed by his strong stand on defense. My feeling is that, absent the war, Bush would have lost in ’04, abandoned by millions of Republicans who wouldn’t want to vote for a “democrat-lite” candidate. As it happens, I think those same voters were terrified at the prospect of Jean-Francois as a “wartime president” and voted for Bush out of desperation.
    At any rate, I think we’re stuck with ever-increasing government. The libs like it as a matter of course: they have no faith in the individual and naturally gravitate toward increasing government regulation and outright socialism. Even citizens who don’t especially like “big government” will sign on most of the time because (1) they fall for the hype that all the new programs are “for the children” and (2) the politicians, aided by the MSM, hide the fact that these programs come at the cost of increased taxes and regulations. No fuss, no muss. GOP politicians have read the writing on the wall: the best way to keep their phoney-baloney jobs is to spend big. The only thing that distinguishes them from their filthy dem counterparts is that they don’t spend QUITE so big.
    dwightkschrute: If the goal is to improve compromise, reduce partisan division, and create communication, being up front about the culpability of both sides would be helpful.
    I think you misunderstand me to some extent. I’m not suggesting that we need “less partisanship”. Politics and representative government RELIES on partisanship, the spirited debate between two or more opposing positions. I’m not in favor of “consensus” unless it’s the result of honest compromise and NOT of one side buying off or bullying the other(s).
    What I’m interested in is a little bit of adult behavior (“Let’s agree to disagree”) rather than schoolyard tactics of petulance and payback. I regret that I’m not likely to find this in the Congress.
    (*) O’ course, I’m ACTUALLY a nasty ol’ neocon who would have Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave because, as we all know, TRUE conservatives like Ronaldus Magnus HATE neocons.

  24. The one characteristic of Republicans is that they are principled. A common complaint leveled at democrats is that they are not principled and shift their thinking based on the last poll. Republicans just aren’t like that. They’ll call others out on things they themselves did with abandon and do it with the straightest face. It’s really impressive. Republicans are committed to the principle of having absolutely no shame. The big difference here is that the constituency is the average person versus some big corporation. The people that the Republicans are subjects to are just not folks you can rally around. It’s tougher to rally around an oil company versus a little kid…but don’t worry the Repubs will make sure to wack that kid down to size…why? because they are principled. They’ll take you down no matter who you are or how old you are!

  25. The big difference here is that the constituency is the average person versus some big corporation.
    It is the “average person” who will have to foot the bill for the SCHIP expansion, and it is the Republicans who are standing up for them.

  26. Republicans earlier this year took advantage of ‘open rules’ periods to use every procedural trick in the book in order to delay or deny passage of bills
    Not so. Say what you like about thr Republicans, they never simply set aside votes which they lost.
    The temperature isn’t the only thing that has Congressman Terry Everett steamed.
    Everett, R-Rehobeth, was standing underneath an electronic sign that tallies House votes Thursday night when a shouting match erupted after Republicans claimed Democrats “stole” an important vote.
    “This is one of the absolute worst things I’ve seen in 15 years as a congressman,” Everett said while back home in Southeast Alabama Monday after Congress adjourned over the weekend.
    At issue is a vote on the House floor that occurred late Thursday night. An amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving some government benefits. Everett said the electronic sign showed the amendment passed 215-213. However, the Democrat-controlled leadership gaveled the vote closed at 214-214, meaning the amendment failed.
    Republican leaders attempted to challenge the vote, but claim their shouts of parliamentary inquiry were ignored. Republicans later claimed Democrats had words stricken from the Congressional Record.
    Democrats have since agreed to appoint a bi-partisan committee – consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans – to investigate the vote and make recommendations for changes in voting rules.
    “They had to when they realized there is videotape of this stuff. I mean, C-Span covers the whole thing,” Everett said. “It’s very disappointing the House and Senate have disintegrated to this point.”
    One clip of the controversial vote has been viewed more than 255,000 times on the popular Internet site Youtube. After the vote, several Republicans begin shouting. But the voice of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., can be heard saying “We control the House, not the parliamentarians.”
    The Republican amendment specifically would have blocked tax money to be used for the housing or employment of illegal immigrants.
    Now, according to The Politico, Republicans walked out of a House vote around midnight Friday “in a massive flare-up of partisan positions.” (The Politico is a publication that covers Congress, lobbying and politics and is generally dead-on accurate.)
    GOP congressmen are also upset because, apparently, there is no longer any official record of a controversial House vote. The Politico writes that “details are sketchy” but a 215-213 win for the GOP may have, due to some political maneuvering, been changed to a 214-214 defeat before the official vote disappeared.
    We trust the House will eventually get the numbers right, but the controversy involved a motion to bar “undocumented” immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance.
    Undocumented immigrants are, of course, illegal aliens. So wouldn’t a typical American taxpayer ask why the government would subsidize the rents and employment of people who are not Americans and here in the nation illegally? And would one of the 213 or 214 — or whatever the final number actually is — Democrats who voted against this motion explain their reasoning?
    After all, how many Americans get help from the federal government with their rent? If the nation has a serious problem of illegal immigration — which it does — doesn’t it make sense not to subsidize illegal immigrants?
    The Republicans were right to storm out of the chamber. This bill sounds outrageous, in addition to being expensive.
    Mike Pence:
    “The Republicans brought a motion to the floor that would deny additional taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. But after Republicans prevailed, and after the gavel fell with a final vote of 215-213, the Democratic majority reopened the vote to ensure that illegal immigrants would be entitled to additional access to public assistance under that bill. This outlandish action by the Democrat majority precipitated the first walk-out in my seven years as a member of the House of Representatives … In a prize fight, you can’t un-ring the bell and on the floor of the Congress, you can’t un-strike the gavel but that is precisely what the Democrat majority did, in a style befitting the imperial Democrat majority days of years past. They reopened the vote to ensure that illegal immigrants would be entitled to additional taxpayer funded benefits and I think the only proper course of action is for the original vote to stand. The Republicans’ effort to deny illegal immigrants more access to public assistance must stand.”
    Whatever else the Republicans did, they never simply tossed out votes they lost and had a do-over. If the right wing blogs were not so determined to ignore immigration they would have been up in arms about this.

  27. Hey, ya’ll… don’t shoot dwightkschrute, da messenger for post #7. The Republican Congress hasn’t behaved well either. It was under a Republican Congress that our military and intel got slashed in the 90s.
    Problem is the danged institution is filled to the gills with corrupt, career politicans on both sides of the aisle.
    Personally, I’ve got no problems Pelosi’s fast tracking a vote here. Why waste time on this bill for a debate that will reach no general consensus. Send it on. It will be veto’d by the CIC. So they have ample time to read, then to vote to override or not.
    And if they override the veto, the GOP has gone completely off the deep end.

  28. The SCHIP passed as expected, but I think the number of yes votes was even less than last time. It could be that some of the Dems were in there districts in Ca., but Bush has said this will be vetoed again.

  29. The probability of veto is quite high. Consider this sentence from Bush’s veto message sent to the House after the first S-CHIP bill this year crossed his desk (bolding mine):

    Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it. I hope we can now work together to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first, that moves adults out of a program meant for children, and that does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the enactment of SCHIP. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.

  30. The solution to all our problems is simple Impeachment, followed by a criminal trial. Certainly in liar cheney’s case outing a covert CIA agent in a time of war sounds like treason to me,

  31. Cyc
    I can’t say for sure what this version defines it as since I was not available for access on the usual websites. See the Captains post for how late in the evening the bill came out.
    I looked at the past version and the way it was written I was not able to determine the specific age cap because of the indirect references back to numerous other laws with age 25 mentioned but unless you are a law geek it would take weeks to track down how all those other legislation modification snippets would impact over all.
    My general position is that this is a public assistance measure not a privately purchased insurance which may add things like 25 year old coverage to competitively market their policy to consumers.
    I can not determine if there is even a being in school requirement linked to the age issue.
    To me private or public after the age of 18 a child should be on their own for insurance needs.
    Others may disagree and we would have a valid opinion difference.
    Part of that is the inconsistency in how it is handled across government programs.
    Back in the early 80’s they dropped social security benefits to a uniform 18 yr cutoff for survivor benefits which were prior paid till the age of 21 for students enrolled in higher education.
    Notably most of those cut by the program were then transferred to the Pell Grant system.

  32. unclesmrgol
    The statement on the upcoming veto today said partially it will be based on the same reason one specifically mentioned is in your quote poorer children first.
    Most don’t realize that all the children (under 18 or 21 your choice) who are eligible under the current program are not in the program. Some states say only 60% of those eligible are registered.
    If all those children were to register along with also expanding the coverage the cost to the program would be nearly to double its annual cost. A large percentage of non registered currently eligible children are from modest income home who still by choice provide their own insurance coverage.

  33. I am personally what many would consider very old school as far as taxes go.
    My view is that taxes should be for only one purpose to raise the revenue necessary to support the budget period.
    Taxes should not be used as a vehicle to implement social engineering and public policy. If a tax feature exists it should be uniform and applicable to all. There should be no benefit that targets a specific group. In other words it should be policy neutral.
    Don’t even talk to me about corporate taxes, my position there is they simply should not exist in any way shape or form.

  34. daytrader,
    There were two paragraphs above the one I grabbed, so I wouldn’t be surprised if all three are again in the message delivered by the President to Congress.
    I agree with you, the line above the one I bolded is more important, but the only way it could have happened is if the Dems did the exact thing I bolded. They have to work with the Republicans if they want to craft a bill which will pass Presidential muster. They seem to be more interested in pretending to do something than in actually doing it.

  35. Chicago 1234..I see you can count, but that’s about the extent of it…
    Cheney outing your gal Val?? Where have you been, you boob…it was a lib…Richard Armitage at State…
    Try and keep up!!! So embarrassed for you….

  36. S-CHIP, Defeated Again

    President Bush tells Democrats in Congress that Recycling the same old S-CHIP expansion legislation is wasting his time. (HT: Michelle Malkin) Ed Morrissey criticizes, and asks, how come the Democrats can’t accomplish anything after winning both houses…

Comments are closed.