I realize we're all supposed to keep saying that Bush will spend money on [crazy thing X] but won't even pay for children to have health insurance, but is that really the best approach here? After all, Bush has basically been clear about his S-CHIP veto: He's ideologically opposed to expanding help for children who need health care. It's not that he's too cheap, it's that he's too bought. Continually reframing his opposition as an inexplicable outburst of fiscal responsibility actually lets him off too easily. It's not the money, but the principle of the thing. And the principle of the thing is that the government shouldn't expand health care coverage for children. If the government were flusher, conservatives would still be against expanding help for children who need it.
