He just said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to INCREASE such support. But his budget proposal decreases it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/washington/27govs.html
2007-02-27 05:35:52 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Jesusjones - your opinion of the constitutionality of this is irrelevant.
Bush declared in his State of the Union Address that he would increase Fed funding to states to help them pay for health insurance for poor kids.
It was a big applause line, although many noted that Pelosi did not join in. She knew the truth that Bush was telling a lie. Again.
2007-02-27 06:40:20 · update #1
Kevin A - we are talking about medical treatment for children. Bush said he would increase funding. He lied.
2007-02-27 06:43:51 · update #2
His proposed budget contains 77 billion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, a large portion of which goes to children and single moms. This cut will be passed on to the states, which will in turn cut services. This is fact. I know because I fought it last time he cut the services.
lundstrom is on crack
2007-02-27 05:45:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Someone has to pay for the Iraq misadventure. ush continues his lies. We could have insured over 220 million children for a year.
Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. We're now near $300 billion, and annual costs are still rising. The White House got rid of Lindsay and "re-estimated" the cost at $50 to $60 billion.
One problem was a complete lack of realism by the neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others. Not only did they assure us the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms and the war would likely end in five to six weeks, but they persuaded much of the country that Iraq's oil would pay for the war. Even if oil production had gone up as predicted instead of down it would not have come close.
2007-02-27 05:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As usual you see a reduction in the amount of a proposed increase as a cut. Is the amount the same or more than what was spent last year? If the answer is yes, then it is not a cut. Twit
"The federal government spends $5 billion a year on the program. Mr. Bush wants to continue that level, and he is seeking an ”additional allotment” of $4.8 billion over the next five years."
2007-02-27 05:44:41 · answer #3 · answered by Lionel . 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
2. There is no Consitutional authority for Federal involvement in child healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States under the Consitution fall within the purview of state powers.
THEREFORE, child healthcare is a responsibility for states to assume, not the federal government.
2007-02-27 05:54:34 · answer #4 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Always tell them what they want to hear,,alway do the opposite. That is the way of the repubs. Look what they did to the Vet, the Guys who they send to War, they decreased thier benefits and are closing a lot of VA hospitals as we speak. I ask you,,,how can we spend over 85 Billion on Iraqi infrastrure and build a new VA Hospital that is needed really, really bad???? We don't, we just give our vets 2nd class care. For the time being,,,child care in Iraq is more important than child care here at home. Thats the repub thinking. They got it backwards and have have had it backwards for years. Rob the poor and give to the rich.......
2007-02-27 05:50:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some states have taken the program aim at kids in a wrong direction. They are allowing adults to use the program. Then when they run out of money they scream that it is not enough. The President wants to narrow the parameters so States who get the money for kids health use it on KIDS.
2007-02-27 05:42:11 · answer #6 · answered by Mother 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. He doesn't care (compassionate conservative that he is)
2. Needs the money for his war (scared to death to raise taxes)
3. Is a liar who says one thing and does another.
2007-02-27 05:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
They only sort of care about babies in the womb (what most people would call a fetus) that is as long as you don't get an abortion and it doesn't cost them anything.
2007-02-27 05:41:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
no, his budget proposal encourages states to pick up more slack by decreasing the regulatory oversight of the fed. I would hardly consider the NYT a reliable source on this matter (Jason B. anyone???)
2007-02-27 05:40:34 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Oh, you'd rather be a pawn of the democrats who want to keep you on welfare and under their thumb?
2007-02-27 06:18:47 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋