Skip to main content

When the SCHIP bill fails to override the president's veto in a week or so, it will be because of people like my representative, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI).

Close political observers may recognize the name: he's the man who stood with then-Sen. Rick Santorum in a famous public declaration that weapons of mass destruction had indeed been found in Iraq.  Or you may recall that he was the congressman most responsible for the early release of classified documents placed on the web, in the hope that readers would find some as yet undetected sign of those very same WMD; instead, the documents turned out to have valuable intelligence data.

I wrote to Hoekstra recently urging him to approve of the new SCHIP bill.  Here is his reply.  Note the crocodile tears over the plight of the poor:

Thank you for contacting me about the SCHIP reauthorization bill.  I support SCHIP reauthorization. In 1997, Congress created SCHIP to provide block grants to states so that they could create health insurance plans for children in poor families who were not eligible for Medicaid. I believe the program has been successful in reducing the number of poor, uninsured children. Unfortunately, many states have taken the liberty of expanding their programs to cover adults or children from higher income families, rather than focus their programs on enrolling many of the 9 million uninsured children that are already eligible for SCHIP benefits.  

The SCHIP reauthorization bill, vetoed by the President, would expand benefits to individuals up to 21 years old and children in families that earn approximately $66,000. The bill guaranteed no protections to ensure that illegal immigrants would not qualify for SCHIP.  

A Congressional Budget Office study revealed that 77 percent of children who would be impacted by the expansion already have personal health insurance. Increasing income eligibility for SCHIP will create a taxpayer-funded incentive to switch to the government run program.  

The bill also imposed a 156 percent tax increase on cigarettes to pay for the expansion of the program, which will disproportionately impact the poor. I support efforts to curb smoking; however, this proposal will need more people to start smoking so that the federal government can pay for the program.  

I understand individuals have strong feelings about reauthorizing SCHIP. I want you to know that I support reauthorization of the program, and I hope that Congress will work in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen the health insurance program so that it covers more low-income children who are truly in need.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.


A few notes: Pete's first paragraph expresses concern about use of SCHIP to cover adults, and some states did do this, but the new law phases out this option.  And, regarding illegal immigrants, SCHIP actually forbids the use of funds for illegal immigrants.  Read Pete closely and it's really that "the bill guaranteed no protection" that illegals would not qualify.  Again, actually, the objection is over forcing states to demand onerous proof of citizenship for all applicants, such as providing birth certificates, rather than establish their own standards, that is at issue.

I would add one more thing: over the past few years, few state governments have struggled as much as Michigan's to make ends meet.  As a result of these hard times, Michigan already has among the highest STATE tax rates for cigarettes in the country, something Michigan state Republicans had no problem with endorsing when the alternative might have been state INCOME tax increases.  

And the enormous tobacco settlement that provided states with huge revenues over the past few years (from the case that inspired the film "The Insider") was, in Michigan's case, entirely spent on general spending instead of its intention, anti-smoking programs - again with Michigan state Republican approval as an alternative to an income tax increase.  You'd have to look hard to find ANY state that spent less of its tobacco settlement on actual anti-smmoking programs than Michigan did.  

I'd be glad to hear from others on reflections on Pete's views.

Originally posted to WaitingForLefty on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:00 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What a dick (7+ / 0-)

    Throw the bum out

    Check out

    by IvyTodd on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:03:57 PM PDT

  •  I believe Fred Upton (MI-6) voted for the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    djtyg, myrealname, MichiganGirl

    expansion.  Some folks are going to rally at his Kalamazoo office tomm. afternoon to encourage him to vote to override the veto.

    Participation will save the human race.

    by extradish on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:10:27 PM PDT

  •  Well.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I guess it's better than giving out nuke secrets.

    Blogging For Michigan-A blog so good, Republicans had us censored!

    by djtyg on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:14:42 PM PDT

    •  It's hard to pick with my congressman. (4+ / 0-)

      He acts like a fucking asshole so often, how could one ever choose which of his prickish actions is the pinnacle in his lifelong career of douchebag behavior?

      Hopefully we can get rid of Pete in 2008... but until then, I'll have to content myself with the memory of the time I told him to his face that he brought shame to my district and shame to my country with every breath that he takes, and that he does not represent me... Ahh... good times. Good times.

      "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

      by MichiganGirl on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:15:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Regressive cigarette tax argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    carries some force. My friend makes the same argument.

    My response is that yes, the "impact" will be disproportionately felt by the poor. But what is the total impact? I beleive that any model would show you some sort of deterrent effect and resulting health benefits. It is a matter of values whether you think the impact towards the poor is net positive or negative.

  •  All the usual claims (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cathy Willey, Eiron, MichiganGirl

    that this is a bad bill so it needs to be defeated, but if only a better bill was introduced, of course he'd be for SCHIP.  Only no other bill will meet with his approval,either.  Typical republican - he'd do the right thing but it's the Democrats fault.  But one thing in his favor, he did respond to you on the subject you actually wrote about.  That alone is a miracle.

  •  Typical greedy Republican (0+ / 0-)
  •  Crying over regressive taxes? Please. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cathy Willey, marina, danmac

    When have you ever heard a Republican protesting regressive taxes before?

    Republicans l-o-o-v-e regressive taxes.  They love sales taxes and user fees that disproportionately affect those on low and fixed incomes.  They really hate graduated taxes where the wealthy might have to pay a closer-to-fair share.

    Members of Hoekstra's CRC church usually loudly support "sin taxes" on liquor, cigarettes and gambling. [They supported taxing dance halls in the days when the CRC disapproved of dancing.] I am being extremely uncharitable, but the west Michigan variety of the CRC, to which Hoekstra belongs - remember he lives in Holland - has more than its share of sanctimonious whitened sepulchers.  They really believe in predestination: poverty and illness are signs of God's disfavor.  An extremely convenient rational for doing nothing.  

    Remember this denomination is still arguing over evolution, and periodically tries to get Calvin College to ban portions of science that support it.  They then get huffy when Calvin's academic accreditation is threatened.  They cannot admit they might possible be wrong.  Petey boy has this outlook in spades.

    While I will call his office I don't expect him to change his vote or even to admit that the denial of adequate care health care for the vulnerable and struggling by the rich and powerful is hypocritical and heartless.

    Pete has been too long in Washington.

    It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

    by clio on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:05:38 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site