Do Republicans really favor the expansion of S-chip by 2-to-1? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says so every time she makes her pitch for what I call S-chip-plus. It would extend S-chip, the federal program begun in 1997 to give health insurance to poor children not covered by Medicaid, into the middle class.
Rather than apply just to kids in families earning 200 percent of the official poverty level, S-chip-plus would make free health insurance available to kids everywhere in households up to 300 percent of poverty ($62,000) and up to 400 percent in New York. And one-third of these kids (the Congressional Budget Office estimate) or up to 60 percent of them (estimate of several economists) would give up private insurance to grab the free taxpayer-funded insurance.
This does not sound like something that the average Republican who reveres limited government and less spending would favor, does it? Yet Pelosi and others cite a poll as indisputable evidence that most Republicans do. Well, the explanation for this anomaly turns out to be in the actual question in a survey done by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates, a respected Republican polling firm. Here's the question:
"According to current estimates, there are 9 million children in America that do not have health insurance. Next week, Congress will consider renewing and providing additional resources for a program called State Children's Health Insurance Program. This state-federal partnership has been in place for the last decade and has insured more than 6 million American children whose parents work but cannot afford health insurance. The program is estimated to cost $35 billion over the next 5 years and will provide coverage to an additional 3 million American children. Do you favor or oppose Congress renewing and providing additional resources for the State Children's Health Insurance Program?"
It's not difficult to see what's wrong here. The poll question is severely lacking in critical information about the S-chip legislation. There's nothing about changing a program for poor kids into a program for poor kids and middle class kids. There's nothing about luring millions of these middle class kids off private insurance. It was because of these features of the bill that President Bush vetoed it. And it is because of them that enough House Republicans appear to be holding firm in their intention to uphold the Bush veto. Had this information been included in the poll question, it's highly unlikely that Republicans would have endorsed the S-chip bill by 2-to-1. Do you want to spend more to make sure all eligible kids under 200 percent of poverty are covered? Republicans might go for that. Indeed, it's what the president has proposed.
I think there's a hidden benefit that Republicans may receive in the S-chip fight. They're being called mean-spirited and uncaring for voting against a program "for the children." This has made some Republicans buckle at the knees. Indeed there's political pain to be endured in opposing the bill. But there's also long-term gain. If Republicans are to re-establish their reputation for holding down spending and restricting the growth of government, they can't pick and choose when to act. They need to seize every opportunity. Voters may not agree with Republicans in every instance, but voters do like the Republican impulse to check spending and government expansion. That impulse had been lost. To win voters back, Bush and congressional Republicans will have to show they've found it again.
