Another veto threat
It took President Bush more than six years in office to first exercise his veto power — he nixed an expansion of federal stem-cell research in 2006.
But once he got that pen in his hand, he apparently developed an attachment to it. The president has threatened to veto more than a half-dozen pending appropriations bills, saying they’re too extravagant.
And on Thursday, Mr. Bush stood firm on his vow to veto a massive expansion of a middle-class welfare program that Democrats passed off as an effort to guarantee that more children have health insurance.
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program was created less than a decade ago as a means of providing coverage to families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but can’t afford private insurance. It is set to expire at the end of the month.
Democrats want to spend an additional $35 billion on the program and give states more authority to expand eligibility guidelines to include families with household incomes far above the current threshold of twice the poverty line.
Democrats howled only weeks ago when the Bush administration turned down New York’s request to craft eligibility requirements that would have allowed families who earned four times the poverty line — more than $65,000 a year — to enroll in the program.
In other words, they want to turn SCHIP into a middle-class entitlement program that will cost taxpayers billions more each year and encourage families who already have private insurance to cancel their coverage in favor of a “free” government handout.
The issue has become politically charged — and some Republicans are running scared, worried about being painted as ogres who are unwilling to help “the children.”
But if they’re going to seek cover every time liberals throw “the children” into the mix, they might as well curl into the fetal position and accept their fate.
In fact, poor kids are already covered under existing programs — and if Democrats truly want to help those who have fallen through the cracks, they would favor a more targeted approach rather than an expensive, indiscriminate expansion of another entitlement.
Whether the president has enough votes to sustain a veto is up in the air. But he should keep that pen in hand.