tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30839553.post8853125318650703174..comments2007-10-19T19:52:31.170-04:00Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02823285394391401770noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30839553.post-78809586353340361172007-10-19T19:52:00.000-04:002007-10-19T19:52:00.000-04:00I think it's more about expanding a program that's been viewed as a success rather than taking a shot at the president. I think a lot of people agree that the program should be expanded, the problem is by how much.<BR/><BR/>The bill that Bush vetoed was already considered a compromise bill and I think a lot of the reason for the standoff is that they see the veto as trying to reopen the negotiations. In fact Bush already named a figure that he'd be willing to expand the program by and then said he'd even be willing to go over that (but not saying how much over).<BR/><BR/>I have little doubt that SCHIP will be renewed and expanded, it's just annoying that it's taking so long.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02823285394391401770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30839553.post-8707214266202516082007-10-19T07:37:00.000-04:002007-10-19T07:37:00.000-04:00In another blog I read some details on the plan. Currently, SCHIP covers children whose parents make twice the poverty level (200%). The new bill would have expaneded that to 3 times the poverty level.<BR/><BR/>Why not re-introduce the bill at the old spending level? If the goal is to cover poor children, that achieves the goal. If the goal is to force Bush into a corner, that does this also. By not increasing spending and not expanding the program, it would be difficult for Bush to veto the program.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that some Senators and Representatives (not all and possibly in both parties) are more interested in creating anti-Bush hype than they are in protecting children.Randy Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16477949304113673930noreply@blogger.com