Now
Fair
73.0°
High
87°
Low
72°

Veto of child health bill will echo into campaigns

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By DAVID ESPO / The Associated Press

Thursday, Oct 04, 2007 - 02:09:40 am CDT

WASHINGTON — President Bush cast a quiet veto Wednesday against a politically attractive expansion of children’s health insurance, triggering a struggle with the Democratic-controlled Congress certain to reverberate into the 2008 elections.

“Congress will fight hard to override President Bush’s heartless veto,” vowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Republican leaders expressed confidence they have enough votes to make the veto stick in the House, and not a single senior Democrat disputed them. A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress is required to override a veto.

Story Photo
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reacts to President Bush's veto of a bi-partisan children's health insurance bill during a news conference in Washington Wednesday. Left to right are Reid, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. (AP)

Bush vetoed the bill in private, absent the television cameras and other media coverage that normally attend even routine presidential actions. The measure called for adding an estimated 4 million mostly lower-income children to a program that currently covers 6.6 million. Funds for the expansion would come from higher tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase on a pack of cigarettes.

“Poor kids first,” Bush said later in explaining his decision, reflecting a concern that some of the bill’s benefits would go to families at higher incomes. “Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system,” he added in remarks to an audience in Lancaster, Pa.

The president said he is willing to compromise with Congress “if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children.”

It was the fourth veto of Bush’s presidency, at a time his popularity is low, the legislation popular enough to draw support from dozens of GOP lawmakers, and an override certain to seal his lame-duck status.

Democratic leaders scheduled the showdown for Oct. 18 to allow two weeks for pressure to build on Republicans. A union-led organization said it would spend more than $3 million trying to influence the outcome. “It’s going to be a hard vote for Republicans,” promised Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Criticism of the veto was instantaneous, from every quarter of the Democratic political firmament.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a presidential hopeful, called it unconscionable, party chairman Howard Dean labeled it appalling, and Pelosi said, “It’s very sad that the president has chosen to veto a bill that would provide health care for ten million American children for the next five years.”

Republicans said none of the criticism would matter. “I’m confident that the more time we have to explain the veto, the more people will be with their position,’ said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, second-ranking GOP leader in the House.

Longer term, Republicans said their goal was to sustain the veto and force Democrats into negotiations on a compromise that GOP lawmakers could embrace.

“Democrats now face an important choice: Either work with Republicans to renew this program or continue to play politics on the backs of our nation’s children,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader.

He and other Republicans said Democratic plans to delay an override vote revealed an eagerness to score political points.

The Democratic legislation would add $35 billion to the program over five years to expand coverage. Bush argued the bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor and would entice people with private insurance to switch to government coverage. He has proposed a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats, sensing a political advantage, said they were in no mood to compromise. Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing strategy, said Pelosi and Reid seemed set on sending Bush successor bills that are nearly identical with the one he just vetoed. The goal would be to force him — and his congressional allies — to repeatedly expose themselves to criticism that they were denying health care for kids.

Both sides took comfort from polling data as they settled in for their struggle.

Democracy Corps, which offers advice to Democrats, said its poll showed the public sides with Democrats by a margin of 60-35. The veto battle “gives Democrats a large advantage with independents, as well as mobilizing Democratic supporters. Indeed, the president has not won over Republican voters on this issue,” said an accompanying memo.

House Republicans quietly distributed a survey by David Winston, who is close to Boehner, that came to a different conclusion. It said critics of the legislation can win the public debate if they say they favor “covering uninsured children without expanding government coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those who already have insurance....” A copy of the poll was obtained by The Associated Press.

Numerous polls have shown health insurance to be an important issue with the public, and Democrats have made expansion of the children’s health program a priority since taking control of Congress in January.

Health care also has figured prominently in the campaign for the White House, with presidential hopefuls in both parties sketching plans to reduce the swelling population of the uninsured, now estimated by the Census Bureau to number 47 million.

There was no doubting the bill’s political appeal.

Eighteen Republicans in the Senate supported the measure when it passed, including four who face difficult challenges next year. In the House, 45 GOP lawmakers defected.

There were 265 votes in all for the measure when it passed last month. Supporters need to pick up 25 more votes to override the veto.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said a few of the eight Democrats who originally voted no — principally because of the tax increase — would switch sides, and one or two more votes were available from a small group that was absent on the earlier vote.

But 151 Republicans opposed the bill when it passed, enough to sustain the veto, and absent numerous switches, Bush’s veto seemed secure.

“We got what we wanted,” said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the GOP campaign committee and an opponent of the bill.

“Once they vote it’s pretty hard to change,” conceded Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who supported the legislation and said repeatedly he hoped Bush would sign it.

Some Republicans joined in the criticism of Bush.

“I believe this is an irresponsible use of the veto pen,” said Sen. Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican facing a difficult re-election next year.

The original Senate vote was 67-29, enough to override. But the House votes first, and if Bush’s allies sustain his veto there, the bill dies.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Peace Frog wrote on October 4, 2007 7:11 am:
" First of all, Gordon Smith has never been a Republican. He's left of Schwarzenegger. Second, for a group of people claiming to be fiscally conscious as Democrats are trying to con us into believing, they're sure willing to increase taxes on a whim and overspend for political gain, aren't they. For a group of people supposedly so concerned about the poor, this bill does relatively little to protect poor children. This fight is nothing but politics, and there are enough Republicans, thankfully, who realize this so this veto will not be overridden. Notice the president says he is willing to compromise and it's Democrats who are unwilling to dicsuss it. As usual, the hypocrisy of the Democrats comes to the fore. Too bad liberal reporters like the doofus who wrote this story and his liberal media brethren won't tell the people the truth about this subject. "

Seems typical wrote on October 4, 2007 7:42 am:
" We can't pay $5 billion more a year to help save American children, but we can spend nearly $4 billion A WEEK on a war without end. LJS is partially right about Bush's lameduck status, except that he has been a lameduck and out of step with Americans since January 2005. I can't say it enough: Bush is the worst, most evil, and less intelligent President we have ever had. "

DP wrote on October 4, 2007 8:09 am:
" On the surface it sounds like Bush is a mean old Republican. But if you take this bill into the real world you would see a snow ball affect of people on the financial bubble of dropping their private insurace so they could get this free stuff. And then the people who are on the next bubble will want free insurance too. And then over the years everyone would want free insurance and taxes would be through the roof. "

Fred wrote on October 4, 2007 8:17 am:
" When politicians can take campaign (huge sums) money from insurance companies this is what you get. Ordinary people (children) left out. "

RT wrote on October 4, 2007 10:15 am:
" Seems Typical: I SECOND THAT. "Make War NOT Progress" should be the new GOP motto in general. "

Chris wrote on October 4, 2007 12:20 pm:
" While President Bush has certainly failed to explain his veto, which is typical of her his poor communication skills. Its really obscene how the Democrats shamelessly exploit a child to further a policy objective. Children and even young adults at the age of 18 simply cannot understand the nuiances of policy. But then for that matter neither do most Democrats holding public office. This low brow politicking and the Democrat's continual niavite in not understanding the can of worms they are opening with broadening social spending, is why I cannot support them. Its just sad that most Republicans in office are so dense that they actually make most elected Democrats look intelligent. To me they are all pretty much clueless "

John wrote on October 4, 2007 12:27 pm:
" This seems like a tastless attempt to get us closer to socialized healthcare by playing on peoples emotions. Look at a healthcare entitlement for children of low income parents in our state. Kids Connection even includes vision and dental, something I don't have and many employers don't offer in their group healthcare plan. http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/med/kidsconxapp.htm I'd say we are doing a pretty good job of taking care of our children. "

Telling it like it is... wrote on October 4, 2007 1:03 pm:
" So Democrats want to increase taxes on the poorest people in our society. That's what we're talking about here. That's what a cigarette tax is -- a disproportional number of our nation's poor smoke. Do they honestly think the poor will quit smoking? No. They'll just steal some more to pay for the smokes. So as we can now see, Democrats really don't give a flip about the poor. All they care about is gaining political power, and they'll use the poor to get it if needed. And let's not forget the liberal media helping them by lying to us and deceiving us every step of the way about issues like this. Do you think if this was Republicans proposing this legislation that the liberal media would miss the chance to chastize them for attacking the poor? Not on your life. Republicans would be the evil villians starving our poor by taking more money from them. But do you read one word about Democrats attacking the poor? Of course not. Anyone who tries to say the media isn't liberal after all this BS needs to be put in a stupid asylum. Anyone who tries to say Democrats care about the poor can join them. "

Ryan wrote on October 4, 2007 4:09 pm:
" Liberal media! Liberal media! liberal media! Oh, I figured if we repeated it enough it would become true. "

Zoomie wrote on October 4, 2007 9:33 pm:
" Lots of attacks on Dems (good job, folks, you've clearly been listening to your daily Pills Limbaugh Show), but I don't see any actual answers anywhere. This bill is NOT socialized medicine, and never has been. Simple fact. It WILL cover more than 4 million kids who currently have NO health care. Are you saying its better to let those kids just suffer and/or die? Apparently you believe that. Dems are exploiting kids?!?! How, by pointing out Bush is CUTTING coverage of kids, and trying to give those kids decent care? And like Repuglicans haven't done the same or worse (Terri Schiavo come to mind, anyone?)! And I thought conservatives believed not in equal outcome but in equal opportunity, right? Don't you think a poor kid with asthema, for example, who can't afford care/meds isn't working at an added disadvantage those rich kids don't suffer under? So apparently you DON'T belive in equal opportunity, but belive in rigging the system to give those with the most already the greatest chance to achieve future success! And why do you guys keep talking about families dropping their health insurance to go on SCHIPS?!?! Its only for kids...Mom can't have it...Dad can't have it...only kids!! Understand those words? And I can't belive people are actually complaining that there is something wrong with kids getting dental or vision care? Did you miss the story on the kid who DIED from a toothache last year? Do you know many kids do poorly in school literally because they can't see whats happening at the blackboard? "

Legislature Coverage