As expected, President Bush, who initially sold himself to the American people as a "compassionate conservative", has vetoed health care for uninsured children.
President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
. . .
The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program.
And what was Bush's excuse for denying health care coverage to millions of needy children?
Apparently, one excuse given by Bush was that the bill in question "would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage" (yeah, that's right, God forbid the children of working Americans actually get decent health care coverage . . . never mind the tens of millions of Americans with no "private" health care insurance).
Unbelievably, though, Mr. Big Spender himself, the de facto head of the "Borrow and Spend" party, is actually claiming that he just had to block health care coverage for needy children because "the Democratic bill was too costly".
Providing health care to millions of children is too costly - but this isn't?
September 22, 2007
WASHINGTON -- -- After smothering efforts by war critics in Congress to drastically cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq, President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure -- totaling nearly $200 billion -- to fund the war through next year, Pentagon officials said.
If Bush's spending request is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war.
. . .
The Bush administration said earlier this year that it probably would need $147.5 billion for 2008, but Pentagon officials now say that and $47 billion more will be required.
. . .
When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
"Everybody predicts declines, but they haven't occurred, and 2008 will be higher than 2007," Wheeler said. "It all depends on what happens in Iraq, but thus far it has continued to get bloodier and more expensive. Everyone says we are going to turn the corner here, but the corner has not been turned."
In 2004, the two conflicts together cost $94 billion; in 2005, they cost $108 billion; in 2006, $122 billion.
The new spending request is likely to push the cumulative cost of the war in Iraq alone through 2008 past the $600-billion mark -- more than the Korean War and nearly as much as the Vietnam War, based on estimates by government budget officials.
And this wasn't too costly?
So, Bush and the Republicans want to spend almost $200 Billion for the GOP's overseas fiasco - in 2008 alone - but spending $7 Billion a year (or only about 1/28th what Bush wants to spend in Iraq next year) to provide health insurance to 4,000,000 more needy children is just way, way too expensive for Bush and his ilk.
With "leaders" like this, who needs enemies?