THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Anything a politician claims is "for the children" rarely is.

Liberals despise the Constitution and Bill of Rights, because they were designed as limitations on government. This is why liberals expend so much brain power trying to devise ways around them.

--from the "Forty beliefs about life from a conservative perspective."

I found it amusing that I had just discovered this list of 40 conservative beliefs via Frog Princess. The "for the children" one is so appropriate when it comes to the SCHIP bill.

Just some of the facts:

1) What the President and Republicans do want:
--to reauthorize the SCHIP program AND increase the funding
--to help low-income children without health insurance

2) What the President and Republicans do NOT want:
--to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get taxpayer-funded health care
--to have to pay the amount of money this new expansion would cost
--to pay for Adult health care at the expense of low-income children
--to pay for health care for families who make $80,000 a year
--to take a first step towards universal health care

Frank Luntz made some excellent points on Hannity and Colmes Thursday night. He was refuting Rep. Pete Stark's beyond the pale claims that the government should be funding SCHIP and not the war on terror. I couldn't find the exact quote but Luntz basically said that the Constitution says the government should pay to defend our country but nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government should pay for health insurance for families who make $80,000 a year. I couldn't have said it any better.

It is despicable how the Democrats have tried to mislead and manipulate people's emotions by lying about the expansion of SCHIP.

Here in KC, my Congressman Sam Graves has been stellar on this. Yet, when he voted against the expansion the Democrats went to town trying to demonize him and his vote. I got a phone call the next day from the Democrat Committee saying that I should call my Congressman and complain about him not taking care of the children. In fact, the Democrats were bragging about how Graves' opponent, our former liberal Mayor, was going to use this against him in the election next year.

In a recent Republican Committee Meeting, Graves' chief of staff talked about how Graves was getting enormous pressure to change his vote but that he was standing strong on principle. I am extremely proud of President Bush and Sam Graves for doing the right thing in the face of the pressure and manipulation. I was even happier when I saw that all the Republicans stood strong and the Democrats were unable to override the President's veto.

I'm not always a fan of Trent Lott but he did a very good job of explaining what the Republicans wanted to do with SCHIP. Here is how he described the GOP alternative:

"The Republican alternative to the SCHIP reauthorization was simple and focused on children who otherwise would have no health insurance. Our alternative was an $8 billion a year, or 33%, increase in the current program. A 33% increase in a program as large as SCHIP is hardly anti-kid.

Our alternative would have prevented “crowd-out,” where families drop their pre-existing, private insurance policies to sign up for an entitlement. Every dollar going to cover a middle-income adult is a dollar taken away from the very child SCHIP was intended to help.

To this, Democrats accuse Republicans of refusing to help children. That’s the height of political demagogy.

Congress is unanimous in its commitment to increase the SCHIP program by an appropriate amount that will preserve its benefits for those now on it and cover those eligible children not yet getting its help. What divides the Congress is the attempt by some to transform SCHIP into an expensive precursor of universal, government-mandated health care. Clearly there are grounds for a compromise that protects our children and at the same time keeps faith with the American taxpayers."

It now looks like the Democrats will have to take a closer look at the GOP's alternative since they were unable to override the veto.

Also, to add to my less than thrilled status with Mike Huckabee, here is where he stands on Bush's veto of the expansion (Hat tip: Cajun Tiger):

"Asked if he would support President Bush's veto of the budget-busting increase in the children's health care program SCHIP, (GOP presidential candidate Mike) Huckabee declined to say he would have issued a similar veto 'because there are going to be so many issues we've got to fight. And the political loss of that is going to be enormous.' Translation: When it comes to tough political fights on spending, don't look for a President Huckabee to be there."

- John Fund of Political Diary, 10/10/07

"Mike Huckabee continues to demonstrate his populist, anti-free market bent. Fresh from a debate in Michigan where he showed skepticism about free trade and President Bush's veto of a budget-busting health care bill, the former Arkansas governor has now embraced a mandatory cap on global-warming emissions."

- John Fund of Political Diary, 10/16/07

Bottom line: Bush and all the Republicans who voted against the expansion were exactly right and have achieved a victory. So much for Bush being a lame duck President.