Some of the big spenders were voted out of the majority in both the Senate and House in November 2006. Those that favored spending money in Iraq instead of spending money at home were not re-elected last year.

In January 2007, a new fiscally responsible leadership took over the House and the Senate.

With the new leadership's "pay as you go" philosophy, the Democratic leaders believe that America can maintain a compassionate civil society, serve up a healthy economy, and protect a non-negotiable social safety net - while not increasing the national deficit. All at the same time.

This holds true with their desire to fully fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In their current bill, the cost of the expanded SCHIP program would be financed almost entirely by a marginal increase in taxes on tobacco products. Still, George Bush has expressed his opposition to the bill largely on ideological terms.

Apparently, Bush wants us to believe that he finds an increase on tobacco products to be at greater odds with his ideology than four million uninsured American children. Bush seems to want to block this healthcare funding despite the fact that the majority of American's are in favor of it.

A poll recently released by The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reveals that American voters strongly support a large per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax to expand health coverage to America's uninsured children.

By a more than two-and-one-half to one ratio (70 percent versus 27 percent), support exists for a 30-cent increase in per-pack cigarette taxes to pay for "health care coverage to uninsured children." Significantly, that support is nearly identical (67-28 percent) for a 75-cent per-pack increase dedicated to the same purpose.

Support for a 75-cent tobacco tax increase to expand health coverage for children is overwhelming irrespective of party affiliation, gender, race, age and other demographic factors. The favorable-unfavorable ratio for different groups includes:

• Democrats: 72-25 percent
• Republicans: 67-27 percent
• Independents: 61-34 percent
• Men: 66-30 percent
• Women: 68-26 percent
• Non-Hispanic Whites: 68-27 percent
• Non-Hispanic Blacks: 67-31 percent
• Hispanics: 69-29 percent
• Incomes Under $30,000: 62-32 percent
• Incomes Over $80,000: 69-23 percent

Survey: Americans overwhelmingly support tobacco tax increase to expand children's health coverage

Evidently, Bush is more concerned about some imaginary threat to the profit margins of insurance companies and tobacco companies than he is with the children in America who are going without vaccinations, annual physicals or even treatment for more serious illnesses like cancer.

The SCHIP program is considered by many to be a success. Despite its small size compared to Medicaid, SCHIP represents the largest federal health care investment in children since the creation of Medicaid in 1965 and has contributed to the reduction of uninsured children nationwide. In addition, it has served as an important model for the benefit and cost-sharing changes to the Medicaid program recently enacted under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA).

The SCHIP program was designed to allow states maximum flexibility to design their
programs within the constraints of a capped federal grant program.

Authorization for SCHIP expires in September 2007. Congress now has the opportunity to reauthorize the program to build upon the success of the last 10 years and provide the resources necessary to further narrow the coverage gap for children.

That is, if George Bush won't stand in the way, as he's threatening to.

Picture a hardworking mother who can't afford to take her child to the doctor. Now, picture her with a new SCHIP card. There she is, the mother is about to enter the doctor's office with her daughter, for the first time in the child's six years on earth. Just as she opens the door, George Bush saunters over and blocks the doorway. No, he says. No. Absolutely not. Even though you hold two jobs and work hard and play by all the rules - you cannot go to the doctor. No, Bush says, I won't allow it.

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House....

The 10-year-old program, which is set to expire on Sept. 30, costs the federal government $5 billion a year and helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance on their own....

And it would rely on a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, to $1 a pack, which Bush opposes. - Christopher Lee, Washington Post

Earlier this summer, Congress passed bills that would increase five-year funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $50 billion in the House and $35 billion in the Senate. The figure now stands at $35 billion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced this week that the two chambers had reached a compromise, and the House would vote on a modified version of the bill.

SCHIP currently provides insurance for six million children; the planned expansion would provide coverage to an additional four million children who would otherwise be uninsured. SCHIP, a joint federal-state partnership that covers children without health insurance, is widely regarded as one of the country's greatest social policy successes.

Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) are responsible for state healthcare programs that cover more than 1.4 million children and pregnant women under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Their states have nearly 25% of all SCHIP participants nationally. These governors are not pleased with Bush's threat to veto SCHIP funding legislation.

They disapprove Bush's new rules he has recently proposed. Bush's proposed SCHIP rules would reverse longstanding agreements with the states and reduce the number of children who receive health care. The governors are strongly urging Bush to reconsider his more restrictive recent policy changes, which simply diminish state flexibility. To Bush, they wrote:

We agree with your push for states to be a force for change in the delivery of health care to tens of millions of our fellow Americans who remain without meaningful coverage. But as you rally governors to do more to help fix our broken health care system, your administration has repeatedly modified existing Medicaid and SCHIP rules, harming states' capacity to help you achieve our shared objectives. - Letter to George Bush from Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Eliot Spitzer (D-NY)

In a separate bipartisan letter to the Senate leadership early in the summer, endorsed from the Governor's Association, the larger body of governors said, "It is important that the (SCHIP) program allow Governors room within which to establish coverage policies that work best in their state," and "a timely and full reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is the Governors' highest health care priority this year."

We remained concerned, however, that there is a desire to place new unfunded mandates on states. While governors are strongly committed to improving the health care for the populations currently covered in the program, they are also committed to increasing access to health insurance for the 45 million Americans without any health coverage at all. Additional mandates may divert resources that would otherwise be used to fund coverage expansions. - Letter from the National Governors Association to Sen. Max Baucus, Finance Committe Chair, and Sen. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member

A Senate report found that after the implementation of SCHIP, "the percentage of uninsured children declined from 13.9% in 1997 to 8.9% in 2005."

Despite the overwhelming majority of Americans firmly supporting greater funding (especially since it includes the Democratic dedication to "pay as you go"), President Bush is threatening a veto.

Now, Bush is saying that he will sign a SCHIP bill if Congress removes $30 billion from it. Governors see Bush's demand as nothing but a bill for an unfunded mandate, that is, the states would be required to still offer the healthcare to uninsured children but would not have the funds to do it.

What do I think? I think that Bush is spending upwards of $100 billion per year for an occupation of oil-rich Iraq but is unwilling to fund $30 billion over five years ($6 billion per year) for the healthcare of American children. He spends $100 billion per year in Iraq and doesn't want to spend $6 billion for our children.

Besides, the $35 billion increase is a compromise, with most, or all, covered by the tobacco tax. It is supported by the majority of lawmakers form both sides of the aisle.

The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the Senate bill would provide health coverage over the next five years to about 3.2 million children who are currently uninsured.

How can we ignore the fact that without this expanded bill, over 3 million American children will live without access to medical services?

Bush's threat to veto it is the action of a bully.

A veto would endanger the sustainability of the program, as the current SCHIP authorization is set to expire on Sept. 30.

Cigarette tax rate increases are an especially effective way to fund healthcare programs because they not only raise revenue they also prevent and reduce smoking and smoking-caused disease, especially among kids, lower income smokers, and pregnant women.

If Bush vetoes the bill, he will be solely responsible for the suffering of 4 million children in America. And, for what? Stubbornness? To pay for Iraq? To protect the highly profitable insurance industry? To protect the tobacco industry?

Who needs more protection? The big profitable insurance and tobacco corporations - or, the helpless and innocent uninsured children of our hardworking lower income citizens?

Bush should stop playing politics with the health of our citizens. Especially our most vulnerable and unprotected citizens.

Many more posts about health care and the uninsured in America here.