When it comes to protecting the American people from suspected terrorists, the Bush administration sees no problem with casting a wide and costly net. However, when it comes to protecting the children of this nation who lack sufficient health insurance coverage, the Bush administration prefers to trawl with a far narrower and cheaper net. From the New York Times:
A Battle Over Expansion of Children’s Insurance
The fight over a popular health insurance program for children is intensifying, with President Bush now leading efforts to block a major expansion of the program, which is a top priority for Congressional Democrats.
The seemingly uncontroversial goal of insuring more children has become the focus of an ideological battle between the White House and Congress. The fight epitomizes fundamental disagreements over the future of the nation’s health care system and the role of government.
Democrats have proposed a major expansion of the program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to cover more youngsters with a substantial increase in federal spending.
Administration officials have denounced the Democratic proposal as a step toward government-run health care for all. They said it would speed the erosion of private insurance coverage. And they oppose two of the main ideas contemplated by Democrats to finance expanded coverage for children: an increase in the federal tobacco tax and cuts in Medicare payments to private insurance companies caring for the elderly.
White House objections to the Democratic plan are “philosophical and ideological,� said Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy. In an interview, he said the Democrats’ proposal would move the nation toward “a single-payer health care system with rationing and price controls.�
Democrats said the insurance program, created 10 years ago with bipartisan support, had improved access to care for millions of children and sharply reduced the number who were uninsured. Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress — with support from doctors, consumer groups and many state officials — want to increase enrollment in the program, which served 7.4 million people at some time in the last year.
“We expect a showdown on the Senate floor at the end of this month,� said James P. Manley, a spokesman for the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. “The program, which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, is under assault by right-wing Republicans.�
State officials fear that the conflict in Washington could lead to an impasse.
“I am getting more and more nervous about the future of the program,� said Judith Arnold, director of the Children’s Health Insurance Program in New York.
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said it was “absolutely essential� that Congress renew and expand the program. Like many Democrats, he said Congress should increase spending by $50 billion over the next five years — the amount decried by Mr. Bush as “a massive expansion.� [full text]
It would seem that the only thing the Bush administration plans to insure is their place in American history as the most incompetent, hurtful, and ideologically blind group of thugs ever to govern.
Kmareka.com 
Your argument is typical David. Propose a federal program, then call those who oppose it “hurtful” and “thugs”. But perhaps the President’s goal is to move away from massive federal programs that are ineffective because of the large bureaucracy it takes to manage it, and because of the great distance, literally and figuratively, the providers are from the actually children in need.
The Bush administration does not care less about children than you do, although it’s politically expedient to say so. In truth, the President is taking the more politically difficult stand of acknowledging the 10th amendment, and the desire to allow local and state governments to provide services to those in need. Reduce the size of the federal government, and turn the savings over to the states, who will be better equipped to meet the needs of their citizens.
Easier for you to just call the President a thug rather than to debate the merits of his position.
At least Arnold recognizes why children’s health care should be a priority, and he is coming from the state level, Mike. States need the funding in order to take care of kids.
Mike, when you judge a person’s character, do you pay more attention to what they say, or to what they do?
Talk is cheap. Bush claims he cares about kids, or whomever. His actions show that he only really cares for the benefit of his wealthy friends and patrons.
Virtually everything Bush has done has benefitted those already wealthy. Virtually nothing Bush has done has benefitted kids, or anyone else. That is pretty much a definition of “hurtful.” We can’t cut the bonus of health insurers to help a few kids, can we?
Want to debate that, Mike? Remember: the guy that Bush appointed to head the “Compassionate Conservatism” office in the White House quit because Bush didn’t actually want to do anything to help.
Easier for you to repeat talking points than to actually present evidence to support your statements.
Kiersten, I couldn’t agree more. But think about where the funding comes from. The federal government taxes us, funnels the money through bureaucracies in Washington, then returns it to the states in the form of aid. We should take less federally, allow states and local governments to spend more locally.
It is the left that has always argued the value of acting locally. Look at the effectiveness of your blog in helping to organize efforts for Cranston. You even have elected officials engaging in dialogue. The experience is direct and personal.
I know this is more ideological in nature, but it’s a response to David’s post, in which he proclaims those with whom he disagrees uncaring thugs. It’s cheap politics. Neither side of the political spectrum cares more for kids than the other. The differences lie in how best to help.
Mike, have you been paying attention? Since we’ve been cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans over the last 25 years, fed taxes have decreased, and state & local taxes have skyrocketed. If you don’t believe me, go look at the chart provided by the Tax Foundation. The two major periods (Reagan & George II) were closely followed by huge jumps in the amount of state & local taxes.
Are you saying we need to increase S&L taxes?
Also, fed taxes have the advantage of drawing from a much larger pool of payors. A couple of extra bucks to the fed, multiplied by a few million people, adds up quickly. And did you realize that RI is in the enviable position of receiving $1.06 back for every $1 RI residents pay?
It all comes down to letting the people at the top of the pyramid off the hook. In case you hadn’t noticed, Ben Bernanke and GW Bush have both said that the growing income inequality is a problem for this country. And the inequality is a direct result of fed tax cuts and stagnant median wages.
As for “cheap politics,” let’s remember that this Admin calls anyone who doesn’t support the war a traitor. And this is an Admin that has repeatedly made life easier for the wealthy by dropping more and more tax burden on the middle class. I think “thuggery” is an apt description of that (think Sherriff of Nottingham), because every fed dollar lost by state & local gov’ts has to come out of the pockets of state taxpayers. And then RI cut taxes on high-end incomes. That’s more that has to be made up by taxing the middle class.
Do you make more than $200k? If so, I can see why you don’t like fed taxes. If you don’t, I guess you don’t think you’re paying enough. Which is it?
Arnold took responsibility for the children and elderly in CA and passed Mercury free Shots and Disclosure. Something Bush & Co has been unwilling to ban or disclose because of Profits and their blatent incestious relationship with Big Pharma. The CDC, EPA and other governmental agencies continue to spinlessly black out, conceal and LIE about what the H@ll is going on.
Klaus is absolutely correct.
It’s a outrage that this President has top aids being brought up on charges and he claims to know nothing.
He won’t approve any program for children or anyone other than his cronies.
He’s allowed Illegals to skip into our country in the last few years by the truck load taking jobs from the legals. We in RI spent $200K last year on them and our Budget is working on a deficit. Yes, Federal money is being cut. RI is the 7th highest taxpayors and my City Cranston is the highest in RI. We cut a lot of childrens programs in this State….but we give free medical to illegals.