I saw something recently that I, quite frankly, thought was extinct--Republicans and Democrats exerting their constitutional right as a co-equal branch of the federal government.
Wow! Republicans actually standing with Democrats to bemoan something the president has done. Either someone has taken the time to read the lost portions of the Constitution or there must be an election next year. Either way it was refreshing to behold.
It seems the president picked the wrong issue to utilize his seldom used veto authority (four in six years). In addition, to stem cell research and a war-funding bill with timetables, the president has added health care for low-income children to his dubious veto list.
The bipartisan bill was approved by Congress to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Schip), from its current enrollment of about 6.6 million children to more than 10 million. A number of Republicans supported the bill that otherwise have made a career of voting for everything the president has desired.
A number of Senate Republicans rightfully challenged the president to locate his moral compass.
According to Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), the president's proposal "won't even cover kids on the program today, much less reach out to cover more kids."
"Unfortunately, I believe that some have given the president bad advice on this matter," said Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. He said supporting the health bill "is the morally right thing to do."
Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon, concurred calling the president's veto, "an irresponsible use of the veto pen." Where were these guys, say, in 2003 when the country was debating preemptive war?
I always maintain some reservation on most legislation because without knowing the details it is difficult to state whether there are legitimate reasons for opposition, regardless of the face value intent.
It is hard to say without reading the bill in its entirety--which a number of legislators fail to do on a consistent basis--whether the measure would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed.
The president argued that the bill would move the country closer toward socialized medicine because it would expand beyond its primary purpose of providing insurance for poor children and move toward covering children from middle-class families.
Let us momentarily take the president at his word that he has a valid point that the bill also helps middle class families as well. Is that a bad thing? Moreover, how many little violators are we potentially talking about?
The president is a little late in his tenure to portray his administration as the vanguard of low-income children.
The $60 billion dollars over five years that the president vetoed represents roughly five months of our current war funding. We can recklessly spend money on war, but are extremely frugal when it comes to the possibility that a few so-called middle class kids will limbo under the pole to receive a much needed benefit.
Furthermore, Congress did the responsible thing by offer an increase on cigarette taxes to fund the bill. Much more than can be said about our current war funding.
Where is the overwhelming bipartisan support of Rep. John Murtha's recent proposal for an income tax surcharge to finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it fiscally prudent to ask only our armed forces and their families, along with our grandchildren--who must ultimately pay for this mess--to bear the cost for our diving headlong into an avoidable quagmire? What does this say about our collective moral direction?
I certainly hope there are enough bipartisan votes in both houses of Congress to override the president's latest veto. But the more concerning observation comes by way of Hubert Humphrey.
"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
Right now, I'd say were flunking this one.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at 510-208-6417