Override Bush and voters won't override you

President Bush, today, vetoed the expansion of the State Children Health Insurance Program (known as SCHIP) saying that the funding went too far, it was step towards socialized medicine, it was expanded beyond the original intent of the program; you know, the Republican's greatest lines when it comes to insuring Americans. However, plenty of Republicans supported this bill. Democrats had 68 votes in the Senate, well over the number of votes needed to override. However, Democrats are about 12 votes short of the override level.

This is Bush's fourth veto, a small amount in the modern era, but the product of divided government. However, Bush picked a politically potent bill to veto. By vetoing this bill, Bush has added another issue to the list that Republicans are charged as "obstructing." The Republicans would do well to break from Bush on this issue.

Politically speaking, Republicans in Congress do not earn anything from supporting Bush policies, as a principle. Obviously, child health insurance is more important than labeling it as either a Bush or anti-Bush issue, but, this post concerns the perceptions of support. By upholding the veto, the issue can be painted simply as "Supporting the Bush policy of denying more children health coverage." Is it that simple? Of course not, but that is the perception painted by a 'nay' vote. Bush's approval rating continues to hover at low 30 % with the occasional dip to 28% (counterpoint: the Democratic controlled Congress has lower approval ratings then Bush). Bush's fundraising potential is neutralized by his negative potency. Also, as shown by the presidential primary, there is record amount of money being provided to political support right now and congressional candidates will not likely be left out in the cold. In conclusion, there is more benefit to breaking from Bush then supporting him. Unless, of course, you're in a solidly Republican district, but those members are not likely to support a veto override under any circumstances. The perception of supporting Bush and opposing children insurance could be deadly.

Secondly, Republicans over the last six and a half years have shown no restraint in spending money and expanding government. Especially in terms of national security, which is considered an essential priority, Republicans have shown a capacity for big government principles. Should not insuring our children be considered an essential priority? The Republican's chief complaint about this bill is that it does too much. It would be a good day for Congress when the detractor's only complaint is that Congress is doing too much and insuring too many. So, Republicans are without an ideological leg to stand on because of their actions in the past six and half years. Without that leg, Republicans are simply arguing semantics instead of deciding to help as many children as they can.

In what is being called another Democratic year, Republicans seeking re-election in 2008 (which is the entire House, by the way) would do well to break from Bush and support a politically potent bill. In the seminal work on Congress, David Mayhew tells us in The Electoral Connection that in order to achieve re-election members must focus on credit-claiming. Republicans could claim all the credit if they override Bush's veto, because without them this would have been another Democratic exercise instead of a bi-partisan effort. Republicans could claim they have no problem telling Bush when he's wrong and bettering the future of America's children. But, if they do not override Bush's veto then what will they claim then?

- Wyatt Schroeder