• 
• 
• 
• 
by Matthew Hay Brown
Sensing their best opportunity yet to overrule a White House that has stymied them on stem cell research and Iraq, congressional Democrats and their supporters have launched a campaign to override President Bush's veto of plans to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.
With polls showing broad support even among Republican voters to expand coverage to 4 million more children nationwide, congressional Democrats are rallying their allies publicly while speaking to their GOP colleagues privately. Supporters both on and off Capitol Hill are sinking millions of dollars into advertisements and automated "robo-calls" in the home districts of targeted Republicans, urging constituents to add to the pressure.
The veto override campaign pits a congressional majority - eager for victory on a program popular among both liberals and moderates - against conservative Republicans whose base sees the expansion as a step toward a national health plan. With the vote scheduled for Oct. 18, Democrats have given themselves two weeks to build support for a vote with reverberations likely to be felt next fall.
"We think it will be a defining issue in the next election because it says a lot about someone's priorities and values," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
"The choices are very simple," he said. "Are you going to support children's health, or are you going to vote in lock step with the president out of blind, partisan loyalty?"
See the rest of the story in today's Sun:
Bush has proposed adding $5 billion to the program over five years. Critics say that level of funding would result in 800,000 children losing coverage. The program is due to expire in November.
Republican leaders say they would support a compromise that funds children currently eligible for the program without extending coverage to families that could otherwise afford private insurance. They say Democrats are exploiting the issue for electoral advantage.
"Republicans are going to continue to stand on principle, to make sure that we provide health care for poor kids first," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said. "I think the Democrats' political games will become apparent to many people, that they're playing games, political games here in Washington, on the backs of poor kids who don't have health insurance."
At issue is the expansion of a program that covers 6.6 million children from moderate-income families not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Adding 4 million children would cost an additional $35 billion over five years.
A bipartisan majority in the Senate approved the expansion last month by a veto-proof margin, but the House vote fell short of the two-thirds needed to override. Now, with the support of the 45 House Republicans who voted for the expansion and the participation of a dozen Democrats who missed the initial vote, the bill's managers say they need 15 more Republicans to come over.
"We're identifying Republican members who did not vote for the bill, but that we believe might be convinced to vote for the override upon reflection because their districts will respond pretty heavily," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said.
One target of their efforts is Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, the only member of the Maryland delegation to vote against the expansion approved by Congress last month. The Western Maryland Republican has drawn an unusual amount of attention from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who singled him out publicly at least three times this week.
"In our caucus today there was a discussion about Maryland," Reid told reporters in one instance. "I think that representative from Maryland better check very closely how he votes on the veto override, because he's doing something that's going to affect the whole state."
Bartlett responded by thanking the majority leader "for recognizing that I cast the only correct vote about SCHIP in the state."
The effort began before Bush's veto last week, when Reid asked 12-year-old Graeme Frost of Baltimore to deliver the Democrats' weekly radio address. The Park School seventh-grader described how the program benefited his family after he and his sister were injured in a 2004 car accident.
Hoyer will discuss the issue again in the Democrats' radio address today. Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, supporters of the expansion, also are among those working to build support.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which raises money for the House races, is targeting eight Republicans with radio and television ads. Democrats were joined yesterday by a coalition including MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change and several labor unions, which announced spots that officials said would have an impact on more than 30 Republicans.
"This is the biggest fight we have had on a domestic issue since the showdown over President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security," said Chuck Loveless, legislative director for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
One Republican who missed the initial vote, Rep. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, has said he would vote for the override. White House press secretary Dana Perino predicted that advocates would sway few others.
"If Moveon.org and the unions ... want to get together and waste another two weeks and lots of money to try to pressure votes - any reasonable person can look at this and realize that, in the House, they are not going to get those votes."
Historically, overriding vetoes has proved a challenge.
"Often you not only have to have two-thirds, you have to have two-thirds and some spares, because the White House goes to work and flips a certain number of votes within their own party," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Still, Sabato said, "everyone is getting something out of this. Bush is restoring his reputation, if he ever had one, as a fiscal conservative. The congressional Democrats are getting a great issue for '08. And the Republican moderates are having the opportunity to put some distance between themselves and a very unpopular president."
Van Hollen said the effort to muster support is genuine.
One of his targets is Bartlett. But the fiscal conservative appears unlikely to be persuaded.
"The fact that the liberals are protesting my vote on the SCHIP just confirms to my constituents that I've made the right vote on that," he said. In a Democratic year, Maryland's 6th Congressional District re-elected Bartlett last fall to an eighth term in Congress with 59 percent of the vote.
Matthew Brown is congressional correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, a Tribune Co. newspaper. David Nitkin, White House correspondent for the Sun, contributed to this report.
Comments
With polls showing broad support even among Republican voters to expand coverage to 4 million more children nationwide,
What would John D and Terry like to tell those silly republicans who support this bill? Why is it that the party who claims family values and strong religious ties, are the first to complain when it hits their pockets? Where's the compasion?
It's in the "good" book they follow until it's time to practice what they preach.
Posted by: bill r. | October 6, 2007 8:19 AM
....and not one mention of the horror that will befall the cigar industry if this tax passes:
• Contrary to popular belief, the overwhelming majority of cigar consumers
are middle class. So are the over 5,000 retail cigar stores many of them
who are second and third generation like myself. Many people who enjoy a
good hand made cigar average 1 to 2 cigars every week.
• A $3 tax on the imported price of a hand made cigar can multiply into a
$12 to $18 price increase per cigar by the time the cigar reaches the
final consumer. No one will be able to afford a hand made cigar after
these punitive taxes.
• The demand for hand made cigars is very price sensitive since cigar
smoking is more of a celebratory hobby than a habit. Unlike cigarettes,
cigar smokers can simply decide to stop buying cigars at any time.
• The proposed cigar tax will cause over 5,000 of small "mom & pop" cigar
shops in the U.S. to go out of business not to mention all the
distributors. Due to a decrease in sales and their inability to pay the
Senate's proposed tax on cigars. This could literally put over 75,000
people out of work. Of course the tax base would then dwindle to nothing.
This would hurt SCHIP definitely not help the situation.
• The SCHIP tax increase on hand made cigars would be all but impossible
for the government audit and establish the value of a retailer's
inventory. This punitive and destructive tax would encourage cigar
retailers to hide their inventories so they could just survive!
• The tax will all but eliminate the demand for cigars, therefore not
generating the income that Congress anticipates from the tax. Instead, the
cigar tax will have a negative earning effect for the government due to
lost state cigar taxes, state sales tax, county sales tax, federal income
tax, property taxes, and social security tax revenues. This as you can see
would be a complete disaster.
• Low cigar demand shall lead to layoffs and job losses at all levels of
the cigar industry. Many of the U.S. cigar factories will now be forced to
close. Many of these factories have been in existence since the early
1900's. All these people will now lose their job. Remember these are all
hardworking taxpayers. This will lead to a greater dependence on
government-supported social aid programs, negatively impacting the
economy. Not to mention that the cigar makers are true artisans will have
done this unique work all of their lives. They will now have to be
retrained. Case-in-point—the luxury tax of the 1990's. When the exorbitant
luxury tax was enacted, an entire industry (the yacht industry) was
decimated, leading to drastic job-losses in shipbuilding yards. These
working class Americans were left without incomes to support their
families. We still have not gotten over that to this day. I assure you the
very same thing will happen here.
• There will be a widespread negative economic and social impact of the
cigar tax on developing countries that make cigars and grow cigar tobacco
including the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, the
Bahamas, Ecuador, Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Panama, Costa Rica and Cameroon,
Africa. Cigars and cigar tobacco are some of the largest exports from
these countries and 95% of their cigar exports are to the U.S. market. The
rest of the world cigar market is predominantly supplied by Communist
Cuba. Honest Americans and their families will lose their jobs and
Communist Cuba will become stronger. This is just plain wrong as you can
well see.
• The cigar tax will negatively affect the United States international
relationships with the above mentioned countries due to the over 750,000
people will loose their jobs because of the American government placing a
huge tax on a product that these countries make. This will help fuel
anti-American political movements instigated by radical Sandinistas in
Nicaragua, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez
and Cuba's Fidel Castro. Just yesterday Daniel Ortega was spouting off at
the mouth on how America is trying to put out over 100,000 people in the
streets with this punitive tax. (There are numerous supporting news
articles on this and the others). The only true happy one is the tyrant
Fidel Castro.
• The unemployment and anti-American sentiment caused by the exuberant
cigar tax will make it easier for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to
recruit terrorists throughout Central America and increase the U.S. threat
of terror attacks from Central and South America. Remember Senator this
menace to our country is opening relationships with these countries at an
alarming pace. Not to mention the many that will now cross our borders
illegally. The estimations alone are between 500,000 to 750,000 people!!
• The illegal immigration from Central America will truly be a crisis for
our Country!
• Nicaragua, Honduras and Dominican cigar manufacturers are viewing the
proposed cigar tax as a violation of the Central American Free Trade
Agreement. And it truly is.
• The proposed cigar tax will add to America's illegal immigration problem
due to the huge number of people in Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and the
Dominican Republic who will loose their jobs due to the proposed cigar tax.
• 95% of all tobacco excise tax revenues at the federal level come from
mass-produced cigarettes. Of the remaining five (5) percent, barely one
(1) percent of that tax revenue is generated by handmade cigars. Yet our
very small industry is again getting hammered!! This relatively small
amount of income for the government will be more than offset with a
negative economic, social and political impact caused by the punitive and
business closing cigar tax.
• The unemployment caused by the cigar tax will lead to drug trafficking
problems throughout Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico. That has
been stated in their respective major newspapers.
• The unemployment caused by the cigar tax will increase crime and gang
activity, particularly MS-13, in Central and South America to filter into
the United States.
• The cigar industry is not a financial burden to America's health care
costs. A more appropriate industry to tax would be the soft drink, snack
food and fast food industry since it is a main contributor to our Nation's
health problems. Not to mention alcohol. Plus the "junk food" industry
could absorb a tax much easier than a small cottage industry like cigars.
• The proposed cigar tax will hurt the many cigar related charities that
currently help the people of the Dominican Republic and Central America.
• The current tax cap of $.05 per cigar is in line with similar priced
luxury items. Currently the Federal tax on a glass of wine is $.05, a
bottle of beer is $.05 and 1oz. of whiskey is $.09. As you can well see
the cigar tax is truly unreasonable and totally punitive.
Posted by: Scott Bushey | October 6, 2007 8:43 AM
against conservative Republicans whose base sees the expansion as a step toward a national health plan.
The base, being the rightious right, fears a health plan for the nation. It would seem these holders of the moral high ground, believe in helping those "they" see fit to help. They'll give to the church, or a charity of their choice, but what if someone they don't like gets the money? What if they're black, latino, gay, a democrat?
I'm sure this will rev you up...and you'll tell me it's my money, I can give it to who I want, but don't argue with me...take it up with Jesus.
Posted by: bill r. | October 6, 2007 8:56 AM
General Eisenhauer won the presidency with the campaign slogan, "Had Enough?" Isn't it time to ask the same question now? Having been wrong in voting Pres. Bush into office is no sin, but defending that choice out of pride IS. Our country deserves better.
Posted by: Henry Landis | October 6, 2007 9:08 AM
First, a Lib President, FDR, creates Social Security, a Lib President, LBJ, creates Medicare/Medicaid, now this Lib/Moderate Congress wants to expand Medical Coverage for Children.
I am already sick and tired of my elderly parents living off my hard earned tax dollars. Now I have to pay for my children too?
What is this? Communist Russia?
Enough is Enough!
I say stay the GOP course: Increase Defense Spending to keep our country secure, and lower taxes to keep our economy prosperous.
Its a stragety that works.
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | October 6, 2007 9:12 AM
The Democrats Rally for Health Care bully, bully. This bill is just an attempt by the Jackasses to bring us Hillary's socialized medicine. It is tying up one-sixth of the nation's annual income to government control. Bad when Hil first proposed it. Worse now. Hil would screwup our health care system from one of the best in the world to the worst in short order.People in Canada and Britain come to America because they are dying from waiting with the rationing of health care. It will be as bad as the post office. Government can not be given control of everything. Then, when Hil comes to power she will raise our taxes to where Bill put them in the largest tax increase in history in 1993. This would cripple our economy. Social Security was taxed by Bill and the tax lingers. These Clintons are trouble let him run the UN. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 6, 2007 9:36 AM
Re "Cigar Tax", the fact that every child born results in celebratory cigars makes for a good nexus, don't ya think? C'mon Scott, where'd you get your talking points, a tobacco industry press release?
Posted by: Michael Lafreniere | October 6, 2007 9:39 AM
"A $3 tax on the imported price of a hand made cigar can multiply into a
$12 to $18 price increase per cigar by the time the cigar reaches the
final consumer."
This is an absurd enough statement to discredit the rest of the post. If there is sufficient consumer resistance to any price increase, the end consumer cost often doesn't reflect the entire increase in producer costs, much less multiply it 4-6 times.
As for protecting "small mom and pop" cigar stores, I am sorry for their personal economic loss, but they are distributing a product known to cause and contribute to serious illness. Unlike wine, which can be abused, but is actually beneficial in moderate amounts, there is no beneficial level of tobacco consumption.
Many of the arguments the writer makes about the impact of the tax overseas can easily be made about our efforts to eliminate the opium poppy. Yet very few people would publicly make that argument, for very good reasons.
The impact on American jobs (that produced benign goods) was not enough to deter passing NAFTA, or restrict competition from goods produced overseas. In my opinion, those American individuals affected are far more deserving of our support, and we are doing almost nothing to help them.
Our public policy should be determined by considerations of national benefit and health, not some quaint backstory on individuals who make their living distributing products that have profound negative health effect.
Posted by: hmpierson | October 6, 2007 9:49 AM
"everyone is getting something out of this. Bush is restoring his reputation, if he ever had one, as a fiscal conservative. The congressional Democrats are getting a great issue for '08. And the Republican moderates are having the opportunity to put some distance between themselves and a very unpopular president."
You know who is not getting something out of this? Working parents like myself who could not afford private insurance for our children otherwise. We're sitting here on pins and needles worrying about a few lousy republicans who may yank the rug out from under us. And these sanctimonious bloggers on the right wonder why the levels of vitriol toward Bush and the republicans is so high. Gee, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are the kind of people who would directly harm our children and wrap it up in a ridiculous message of capitalist ideology. If we lose this, I will be sending the medical bills for my daughter that I won't be able to afford to pay directly to George Bush and the congressman who vote against this.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 9:53 AM
2007 POVERTY LEVEL FOR FAMILY OF 4 - $20,650
SCHIP IS BASED ON 300% OF POVERTY LEVEL. A FAMILY OF FOUR CAN HAVE AN INCOME OF $61,950 (THE NATIONAL AVERAGE), AND QUALIFY FOR SCHIP HEALTHCARE. IT CLASSIFIED PEOPLE UNDER 25 AS CHILDREN.
A LOOPHOLE WILL ALLOW STATES TO GIVE TAXPAYER BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL. AN SS NUMBER AND THE NAME OF THE SS CARD HOLDER ARE NEEDED TO QUALIFY. NO VERIFICATION THE PERSON IS THE PERSON ASSIGNED THAT SS NUMBER.
REPUBLICANS RECEIVED THE 300 PAGE SCHIP BILL AFTER 6:30 PM MONDAY CONGRESSMEN WERE EXPECTED TO BE READY TO DEBATE THE BILL ON TUESDAY. THE LIBERALS SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROAT TACTIC.
TO FINANCE IT A $6.00 TAX ON THE LEGAL CONSUMPTION OF TABBACO WILL BE ADDED TO EACH CARTON. ANOTHER LIBERAL TAX. WHY NOT TAX THE ILLEGAL DRUG USERS WHEN THEY ARE CAUGHT.
PRESIDENT BUSH WILL VETO THE SCHIP EXPANSION BILL BUT SAYS HE WILL SUPPORT A REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM. BUSH RIGHTLY SAYS THAT EXPANDING SCHIP TO GOVERNMENT-RUN MEDICAL PROGRAM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Posted by: JERRY | October 6, 2007 10:01 AM
The problem I see is we are a country that instead of being proactive with health, we are reactive. Most people do not see a doctor until there is a problem. Wouldn't it be great if our children learn to get preventative care rather than relying on the emergency room? What a great lesson for them. They would grow up healthier.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 6, 2007 10:02 AM
The cigar tax will cause Rush limbaugh to spend money on cigars he could have spent on percocet. Poor people will all die from loosing their only source of income and another 9011 will be carried out within our borders by Cuba with the vast wealth we will cause to be funneled into their efforts for world conquest!!! Help, I'm so scared
Posted by: paul | October 6, 2007 10:16 AM
Michael wrutes:
"C'mon Scott, where'd you get your talking points, a tobacco industry press release?"
Forgive me Michael-I did not post my source:
A Plea from Nick Perdomo
Nick Perdomo
President & Founder Tabacalera Perdomo
www.PerdomoCigars.com
Posted by: Scott Bushey | October 6, 2007 10:28 AM
Jason writes:
"You know who is not getting something out of this? Working parents like myself who could not afford private insurance for our children otherwise."
How about this, go after the independant greedy insurance companies to all pony up; Tax them! lets call it *Insurance-Insurance tax*
Posted by: Scott Bushey | October 6, 2007 10:32 AM
After a few "napkin" calculations, it appears we could reduce the RepubliCON Mercenaries War Profiteering by approximately 7% to pay for the next 5 years of child health care. This without ANY tax increase.
Another idea: Assuming the 148,000 AK-47s "Lost" in Iraq were worth approximately $240, let's find the war profiteers who "Found" the AK-47s and send them the bill for SCHIP.
Posted by: TPaine | October 6, 2007 11:23 AM
"Its a stragety that works."
Yeah, right. The writer must be a product of another brilliant "stragety" - no child left behind.
Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | October 6, 2007 11:35 AM
We provide free healthcare for illegals, why not our own citizens? And since we're being generous, I understand the continent of Africa could use some free healthcare.
Posted by: Dave | October 6, 2007 12:16 PM
There have been studies that show that people from Canada are NOT coming here for our so-called-excellent health care-- and people in Canada and Britain are not dying in droves because of waiting lists, I hate to tell you. In fact, Americans are viewed with PITY because we don't have the sense to provide basic health care to our citizens (even our kids.) I am a smoker and if the passage of SCHIP means I'll have to fork over an extra $6.00 well then so be it--it's worth it to me. Republicans who don't support this are not using their heads. Governments are NOT just for waging war and invading countries--they are also for providing decent living conditions for their citizens. Get a freakin' clue.
Posted by: Get_a_clue | October 6, 2007 1:33 PM
We have turned our health care over to insurance companies. Why did we do this. Insurance companies need thirty cents of the health care dollar. A Federal company such as Medicare could operate on less than four cents of the health care dollar as Medicare does. If you think insurance companies are more efficient you are wrong. Their clerks dictate to doctors. They increase their profits by denying care.
Posted by: c. perry | October 6, 2007 3:20 PM
C. Perry Writes:
"We have turned our health care over to insurance companies. Why did we do this. Insurance companies need thirty cents of the health care dollar. A Federal company such as Medicare could operate on less than four cents of the health care dollar as Medicare does. If you think insurance companies are more efficient you are wrong. Their clerks dictate to doctors. They increase their profits by denying care."
The above is naive. Have you ever worked in the industry? You mention "Clerks". Every insurance carrier I have worked w/ have Medical Directors who are practicing physicians. The infrastructure is supported by Nurses etc. Decisions are not based upon the fine art of denying for the sake of denying. Anyone who is on an HMO has by their own free hand chosen to purchase said product line. Why cry over the number of raisins are in the box when you purchased the product???
Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2007 3:28 PM
Now just a darn minuite! I for one am supporting the SCHIP, while you republican supporters are surporting that illeagal and immorral war. And you want the congress not to override that veto. BALONEY!!!
Think of the children who otherwise won't get no health care.
Oh, BTW, I'm a democrat, and I'm darn proud of it!
Posted by: The Nerd | October 6, 2007 4:42 PM
Posted by: Scott Bushey | October 6, 2007 8:43 AM
Please post the link to the "unbiased" source from which you Copy and Pasted your post , please?
Posted by: BC | October 6, 2007 6:03 PM
[quote]
Then, when Hil comes to power she will raise our taxes to where Bill put them in the largest tax increase in history in 1993. This would cripple our economy.
Posted by: Jerry White | October 6, 2007 9:36 AM
[/quote]
Yeah, that 1993 tax increase by President Bill Clinton sure KILLED the US economy, didn't it?
You're an idiot.
Posted by: BC | October 6, 2007 6:08 PM
We provide free healthcare for illegals, why not our own citizens? And since we're being generous, I understand the continent of Africa could use some free healthcare.
Posted by: Dave | October 6, 2007 12:16 PM
Sooooo... your saying American kids don't deserve better than what they got in Africa?
Good one dave. Good one.
Posted by: davidk | October 7, 2007 12:46 AM
[quote]
Then, when Hil comes to power she will raise our taxes to where Bill put them in the largest tax increase in history in 1993. This would cripple our economy.
Posted by: Jerry White | October 6, 2007 9:36 AM
[/quote]
Yeah, that 1993 tax increase by President Bill Clinton sure KILLED the US economy, didn't it?
You're an idiot.
Posted by: BC | October 6, 2007 6:08 PM
You mean you don't remember the endless bread lines and soup rations of the mid and late 90's, BC?
Posted by: davidk | October 7, 2007 12:51 AM
[quote]
Then, when Hil comes to power she will raise our taxes to where Bill put them in the largest tax increase in history in 1993. This would cripple our economy.
Posted by: Jerry White | October 6, 2007 9:36 AM
[/quote]
Yeah, that 1993 tax increase by President Bill Clinton sure KILLED the US economy, didn't it?
You're an idiot.
Posted by: BC | October 6, 2007 6:08 PM
You mean you don't remember the endless bread lines and soup rations of the mid and late 90's, BC?
Posted by: davidk | October 7, 2007 12:51 AM
No I don't. Maybe John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D could post a link to a photograph of them on Flickr.com.
Posted by: BC | October 8, 2007 12:05 PM