About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Henry reported that Bush "wants to expand" SCHIP, but not that his proposal would underfund program

October 04, 2007 12:32 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

43 Comments

On the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom, during a report on President Bush's veto of a bill that would expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, co-host Kyra Phillips asked CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, "[T]he president back in 2004 -- in his Republican Convention speech -- didn't he declare that SCHIP was a great program and he promised to expand it? Now, he's backpedaling. I mean, what's going on?" Henry responded: "[I]n the 2004 campaign, the president made clear that he liked SCHIP, and he promised that if he was re-elected, he would expand it. And the White House notes that the president is on record right now in saying he wants to expand it by only $5 billion, though, whereas the Democratic plan would be $35 billion. And so that's where the rubber meets the road." Henry did not point out that the Bush proposal to "expand" SCHIP by $5 billion over five years would underfund the program by $9 billion during that period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As Media Matters for America has documented, in May, the CBO estimated that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period." But a $5 billion increase from baseline funding -- Bush's proposal -- over five years would total $30 billion.

Henry concluded: "[I]t's very likely this ends up being somewhere in the middle, but I think much closer to 35 billion than 5 billion, because it's going to be very difficult for the president to make the case to the American people that he doesn't want to expand this as much as the Democrats do."

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom:

T.J. HOLMES (co-host): It is a risk few politicians would take: going on record against expanded health insurance for children, but President Bush did just that this morning. He vetoed a $35 billion bill that he says amounted to a big step toward socialized medicine. The SCHIP program benefits families that earn too much for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The Senate has enough votes to override the veto but the measure cleared the House with less than two-thirds veto-proof majority.

PHILLIPS: So, right after his veto, Mr. Bush headed to Pennsylvania to talk more about federal spending. He said the health insurance bill went far beyond the low-income kids that the program was meant to help.

BUSH [video clip]: So, I wanted to share with you why I vetoed the bill this morning: Poor kids first. Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poorer children. I am more than willing to work with members of both parties from both houses.

PHILLIPS: Well, Democrats say that the president's fiscal responsibility argument is a smoke screen. One House member said that the insurance program's price can't compare to the cost of other White House priorities.

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL) [video clip]: The president is refusing to spend $7 billion a year on children's health while insisting on $10 billion a month in Iraq. The president and Republicans in Congress say that we can't afford this bill but where were the fiscal conservatives when the president demanded hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq?

PHILLIPS: So, what's really going on here? Is the president really against insurance for poor kids? Are free-spending Democrats trying to break the bank? Let's bring in our White House correspondent, Ed Henry.

Ed, a lot of Americans seem to be in favor of health care for kids -- expanding this program. I mean, take a look at the Washington Post/ABC poll that I was talking to you about this morning: 72 percent of Americans in favor of increasing money for children's health insurance. So, why is the president opposed?

HENRY: This comes down to one thing, Kyra, and that is the fact President Bush -- the Republican Party in general -- they're extremely nervous that they have lost their brand of fiscal conservatism. That when Republicans were running the Hill, with a Republican president here behind me, that they let too -- through far too many spending bills that were bloated with all kinds of pork barrel projects and everything else, and so they are finally trying to hold the line on federal spending.

The political problem, of course, is the fact that you have Democrats now saying, "Wait, you're going to draw a line in the sand after all this debt that's piled up. You're going to draw a line in the sand on children's health," and that's why this is so politically radioactive -- that while the president, on one hand, is trying to restore the Republican Party brand on holding the line on federal spending, he's doing it on a program that is very, very popular. That could backfire on his party next year. He's not on the ballot, but the House and Senate members are, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Well, Ed, what about also, the president back in 2004 -- in his Republican Convention speech -- didn't he declare that SCHIP was a great program and he promised to expand it? Now, he's backpedaling. I mean, what's going on?

HENRY: Well, in the -- you're right -- in the 2004 campaign, the president made clear that he liked SCHIP, and he promised that if he was re-elected, he would expand it. And the White House notes that the president is on record right now in saying he wants to expand it by only $5 billion, though, whereas the Democratic plan would be $35 billion. And so, that's where the rubber meets the road.

I think you also heard in the president's remarks there that he's clearly signaling he's ready to deal with the Democratic Congress. He's clearly going to have to come up from the $5 billion, but he doesn't want it to be 35. So, it's very likely this ends up being somewhere in the middle, but I think much closer to 35 billion than 5 billion, because it's going to be very difficult for the president to make the case to the American people that he doesn't want to expand this as much as the Democrats do, Kyra.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by JLyons (October 04, 2007 12:49 pm ET)
         

      The Bush veto may hopefully be the start of the end of the GOP as we know it. How anyone can come out and veto something that would help children is beyond me.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 1:17 pm ET)
           

        You know it was nothing more than pure politics, right? The reich wingers think s-chip is a stepping stone to socialized medicine so they are gonna fight tooth and nail any program that will interfere with their cash cow. Greed over God every time...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (October 04, 2007 1:24 pm ET)
             

          Yeah...I think it's a little amusing that the party of "Christian values" skips over that part where Jesus told the rich guy to give everything to the poor. Not one of their favorite verses, I would wager.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 1:30 pm ET)
               

            Why do you think they base everything on the old testament? Cause Jesus isn't in it...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 2:04 pm ET)
                 

              Not only are you guys clueless on politics - but your knowledge of Christianity is suspect too.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by skeptical (October 04, 2007 2:31 pm ET)
                   

                WC,

                I think you are projecting here!  These guys completely understand Christianity and the lack of Christian ethics displayed by a majority of the Right Wing!

                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 2:31 pm ET)
                   

                Oh, I think we know far more than you'll ever care to admit about either.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
                   

                Oh, I think we understand both far more than you are ever willing to give us credit for. But go ahead and believe that if it helps you sleep better.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 4:45 pm ET)
                     

                  Snoopy,

                   

                  I was playing with you on the Limbaugh thread but on a more serious note your comment above seems to suggest that the Old Testament and the New Testament contradict each other.  

                   

                  God is unchanging and consistent.  The scripture of the OT and the NT are from the same God.  The two books compliment each other; the NT builds on the OT.  Think of it has having to learn the virtue of obedience before being trusted with the responsibility of freedom.  God wants us to live life abundantly – not live in misery. He wants us to share our blessings with the poor – not give them everything.  He wants us to build wealth that we can pass on to our children – He wants us to contribute to the building of His kingdom.  In the OT the first commandment is not to have false gods. In the NT Christ reaffirms this by saying that is the greatest of all commandments.  In both the OT and NT the warning is that money corrupts and chokes out the word of God.  Christ tells one wealthy man looking to become perfect he should give his money to the poor and follow him.  As the man sadly walks away Christ tells the disciples that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God – the message is money can become a false god.   There is nothing wrong with wealth – it is a blessing from God – when understood and used properly.

                   Christianity also teaches not to call into judgment another persons relationship with God.  There are plenty of wealthy politicians on both sides of the aisle whose public actions are open to review and rebuke – their faith however is matter only God can judge.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 6:20 pm ET)
                       

                    I understand that, and don't really get bothered if you are messing with me. I dish it out now and then, I have to be able to take it so no worries.

                    I have no idea if you are a right wing kinda guy or what, my beliefs are from what I've since confirmed from my Dad's beliefs. He always says if you have to tell someone your a christian, you're probably not, and you can spot them in church because they are the ones who always sing and pray the loudest.

                    I don't hate christians at all. I just have no respect for phony christians, and I always seem to find most of them on the right. At least that's what they tell me, that there aren't any on the left...

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bittermarv (October 04, 2007 8:06 pm ET)
                         

                      Now, to be clear, what you meant by "phony christians" was just one Christian who pretended to be a Christian so he could get money from "faith based" grants.  Right?

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by nativeofsf (October 04, 2007 7:24 pm ET)
                       

                    Thank you WC4ME for your Christian sermon. Unfortunately you have misinformed others regarding various subjects not of the Christian bible. They are from the Torah, as contained within the Jewish bible. Whether your misunderstanding of Judaism is unintentional or otherwise, your premise was Christian — without a Jewish understanding. You attempted to substantiate your Christian beliefs with what you assumed to be or were taught to be Jewish, but they are not. They are Christian and not Jewish. ¶Now the majority of individuals who continually post comments here, in the MediaMatters website, demonstrate a conviction and a veracity in their thoughts, words & understanding. They are quick to cite their sources, unmask falsehoods, deceptions, lies and just plain bogus untruths, myths and assorted bull-bleep as scribbled by trolls, hysterical neocons, misguided Republicans, anarchists, hallucinogenic buffoons, brain-dead television pundits and psychotic egotists. And they, the posters, will “fess up” or apologize, almost immediately, if something was not all together kosher in their words. Snoopy erred in his statement, “Why do you think they base everything on the [Jewish bible]?” This would seem to call for a ersatz conclusion, based upon an obviously apocryphal, false story…perhaps lightheartedly yet still without, as your statements. They only lend fodder to those who are highlighted or exposed here to discredit MediaMatters.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (October 04, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
                   

                Since I'm not a Christian, I'll admit to not being an expert in Christianity. However, I'll wager that I know as much about the Bible as President Numbnuts, who named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (October 04, 2007 3:17 pm ET)
                   

                WC, since you apparently fancy yourself an informed Christian, maybe you can enlighten us....who would Jesus bomb?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by bittermarv (October 04, 2007 3:24 pm ET)
                     

                  Silly man.  Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone!

                  Now, he might go around smiting people...

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 5:53 pm ET)
                     

                  Ann Coulter

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by deeznuts (October 04, 2007 8:36 pm ET)
                       

                    *snort*

                    Good one.

                    Funny, certainly. But I think even the mythical Jesus would not even bomb Ann Coulter. From what I've heard, he loved everybody pretty much equally.

                    From what I've heard.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (October 04, 2007 12:50 pm ET)
         

      Even with the Corporate Media lying full-time for him, Bungle is gonna taste de feet on this one. Too bad that in the meantime, so much attention gets diverted from all the other crimes of this would-be despot.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 04, 2007 1:03 pm ET)
           

        I agree. There is no doubt that Wrong Way Georgie has committed several impeachable offenses, not the least of which was cherrypicking and exaggerating WMD intelligence.

        But, like Rush said in the excised portion of his "phony soldiers" transcript, "the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -"

        Yeah...who cares anymore?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (October 04, 2007 1:29 pm ET)
             

          yay! You mentioned Rush which allows me to segue into this article about clearwater not allowing the votevets add on the Rush show because it would "conflict with his listeners beliefs"! Now just who is trying to censor free speach again?

          OK, now I will be good and turn it back over so as not to derail the thread. ;)

          Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (October 04, 2007 12:55 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      FREE SPENDING DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Jimmy Carter left a $26 Billion Dollar deficit after a 9 year war in Vietnam, and a inflation, and a recession inherited from Nixon. Ronald Reagan railed about this deficit in his first SOUA to say it would reach the outer atmosphere 26miles if stacked in one dollar bills.

      Reagan left a $64 billion dollar deficit that would, nearly 3 times the deficit.

      Bill Clinton left a $220 Billion Dollar Surplus in 2001, do you really need me to tell you what the Republicans did with that money???

      Free spending Democrats eh??? HOW ABOUT DRUNKEN RICH KIDS WRITING CHECKS OUR GRANDCHILDREN CAN'T CASH!

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 04, 2007 1:15 pm ET)
           

        dangrady, I caught a bit of Hugh Hewitt's radio show the other day, and he actually let a rare caller through who was intelligent and disagreed with him.(not that those people are rare, just that the screeners let them through)

        The caller brought up many of these points, I'm sure ones not mentioned often on righty radio,and Hewitt panicked. Not contesting anything, Hewitt started badgering the caller to tell him that Repubs spend more than Dems.Having the luxury of being comfortably driving down PCH listening, I was responding that they both spend, the Dems just pay the bill.

        The caller, probably leading into that, finally gave in and said "yes, Republicans spend more", at which point Hewitt broke into phony laughter, and cut off the caller, knowing that his audience had just been exposed tothe truth, or the exact opposite of what they believe.At that point, they could write off the caller as insane.

        I don't know why the Dems don't bring these money issues up more often.Has the myth of the fiscally responsible GOP been hammered into the American public so successfully that nobody even fights it?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (October 04, 2007 6:33 pm ET)
             

          HBL you have revealed yourself.  You are not yet assimilated.  Please report immediately to your nearest pod person for help.  It's not painful; you just go to sleep......

          Report Abuse
    • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 1:18 pm ET)
         

      Polotics 101-

      Program needs $14B to cover eligible participants.  President says $5B - Congress says $35B to cover existing and expand eligibility. Split the difference $17B. 

      Who want's to bet the final bill is around $17B -  Program stays focused on low-middle income children and allows for minimal expansion?.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 04, 2007 1:26 pm ET)
           

        By your numbers, Bush would triple his initial expenditure plan  I hope he does at least that.  Think he would?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (October 04, 2007 3:31 pm ET)
           

        Split the difference $17B.

        Rookie mistake.  You're assuming this administration actually compromises on anything. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 04, 2007 5:07 pm ET)
             

          Also, the difference here is 340% of what Bush wanted.  That would seem less like a compromise and more like giving in.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
               

            Yes - but it's only 50% of what the Dems wanted - and they control the congress. 

            Report Abuse
          • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 04, 2007 6:04 pm ET)
               

            I think if the final number stays below $20B Bush will believe he compromised. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (October 04, 2007 6:37 pm ET)
                 

              What do you think about St. Peter's directive to the Christian community in the Book of Acts?  Seems a pretty decent way to live (I've done it & it works great)

               

              Report Abuse
            • Author by bittermarv (October 04, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
                 

              I think if the final number stays below $20B Bush will believe he compromised.

              Perhaps.  But he'd never publicly admit it.  Instead, he'd take credit for the entire plan as though it was his idea all along. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by ufleirx (October 05, 2007 12:27 am ET)
                   

                Who cares who takes credit for it?

                The expansion of this program is a good idea as long as it gets done and is funded. Most people will see it as Bush having to compromise, except for the 29% or so that will support him no matter what. They will believe he did it all and strangely enough will hate him for it. The only issue so far they have disapproved of Bush's handling is immigration reform -- on which he was a good deal more liberal than most of his base -- if he okays any expansion of SCHIP they will view it as a betrayal of their "ideals". If you would dane to call them that.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by astepro4301 (October 04, 2007 9:54 pm ET)
         

       I wish you would come back on and tell the public about this?? Mr. Henry you did not point out that the Bush proposal to "expand" SCHIP by $5 billion over five years would underfund the program by $9 billion during that period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In May, the CBO [link to www.cbo.gov] title="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-SCHIP.pdf#page=26">estimated that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period." But a $5 billion increase from baseline funding -- Bush's proposal -- over five years would total $30 billion. You really need to do your job better.

       

      Allen Stepro USMC Ret

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mgarnett251924 (October 05, 2007 10:19 am ET)
         

      Can I please ask you "give-away", "womb to tomb" Libs a real honest question ? Since when did a 25 year old person become a child ? Hilary and the Dems plan would include "children" to the age of 25 !

      And, since when does a household making $80,000.00 a year qualify as POOR ? You have got to be kidding me, this program originaly was designed to help POOR, UNINSURED CHILDREN, not 25 year olds making $80k...

      When will the give aways stop.

      The Libs / Dems say they will "partialy" pay for this EXPANSION of the program by invreasing the cig tax... Wait, aren't we trying to ban cigs in every part of our Nation... New York has banned smoking in your car, most States have all kinds of non-smoking rules. More and more Americans ARE quitting, so the math dictates that we will NOT be raising the money needed to fund this expansion because the number of folks getting / paying the new higher tax will decrese, so where do you think the money will come from... ??? ME & YOU, as always...

      When is enough enough ? Help poor kids & families I get that, ok.

      But 25 year olds or folks making $80k... ???

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (October 05, 2007 12:53 pm ET)
           

        From the previous thread on this subject:

        I debunked this one with W4-whatever on the first page.  The 25 years old, $80,000 is some right-wing lie.  I read the actual bill.  I suggest you do the same.  The bill expands the eligible age (if a state chooses to do so) from 19 to 21.  Not 25.  Also, to get to $80,000, you would be referring to a family of five at 300% of current poverty rate (the bill does not specify numbers, just percentages of the poverty line).  I happen to think that $80,000 would not come close to covering private insurance for 3-4 kids. 

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mgarnett251924 (October 05, 2007 11:02 am ET)
         

      Are you folks really looking at the facts about the health care systems in the UK, Canada and France ?

      Am I wrong here or did I hear and read that Canada's system has huge waits for even basic services, not in hours, but WEEKS. The new French Pres has said that his country is going broke funding the health care system and will need to raise more money AND ration services. The British are rationing the services drasticaly. Is this really the path we want to go down ? I have haerd that the German system IS VERY GOOD, so I will do some research on that to see if it might be a model that would work with Hilary care. Is our system in need on a MAJOR change ? YES, no doubt, but looking at one failed socilized system after another is ALSO scary. Reform yes, make a total change, I say NO...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (October 05, 2007 12:58 pm ET)
           

        Others may have more statistics, but from my reading and listening have heard that Canadians are generally satisfied with their health care.  Yes, there are waiting lists; but there are waiting lists here too, and we don't cover everyone.

        If you can get beyond the knee-jerk reaction to "socialized medicine" there are some reasonable ideas to accomplish universal coverage.  I favor medicare for all.  Medicare is actually quite efficient compared to private insurance with overhead costs. 

        Government programs don't work well when implemented by crooks who don't believe in government.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mgarnett251924 (October 05, 2007 1:14 pm ET)
         

      Mary,

      I do not want out GOV, be it local or State to keep telling me what I can and can not do. In the proposal from Hilary it would REQUIRE that every American get a yearly physical, did you know that ? And are you aware that it is physicaly and numericaly IMPOSSIBLE to do, it sounds great, but in practical ways can NOT be done... We do not have enough Doctors to do all Americans every year. Numerical impossibility, plus I do not think it is the GOV place to tell me what I must do reguarding my healt care. If you want some Gov agency telling you who you can go to, how much you must wait, what surgery you can and can't have, fine. Not me. I'm an adult, I can think for myself, I do not need you or your do-gooder big Gov running every aspect of my life. That to me is the perfect definition of Comunist.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mgarnett251924 (October 05, 2007 1:20 pm ET)
         

      Mary and Jawill11 did not answer how you would pay for this, the cig tax as I have shown will NOT make the note. Expect more and higher taexs from EVERY TAX BRACKET, because the "evil rich" whom you folks love to tax will one day be far too small precent of the population to demonize and rape. One day after higher and higher taxes on the "rich" they will not be rich, or since they are rich will chose to MOVE from America and lessen the pool from which you folks love to drink. Face it folks, we are  ALL gonna pay for this, I AM currently paying, I pay for MY families health care and i DO NOT ask for your help. I do NOT ask for your money.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • CNN
    CNN
    One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
    Phone: 404-827-1500
    Fax: 404-827-1906