October 2nd, 2007
10:20 AM ET
7 years ago

White House reiterates upcoming veto

President Bush "will veto" legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years, the White House reiterated Tuesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bush "will veto" legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years despite Democratic pressure lobbying him to change his mind, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated Tuesday.

Even though Democrats are expected to officially send the legislation to the White House Tuesday afternoon, Perino said Bush will not veto the bill on Tuesday.

"Not today," Perino said, adding that Wednesday is likely for the veto. The president will be traveling Wednesday to Lancaster, Pa. to discuss the federal budget and taxes.

This will be just the fourth veto of Bush's presidency. After not using his veto power at all during his first four-year term, the president has vetoed three bills in his second term, one on Iraq war funding and two on stem cell legislation.

Full story

Click here to see CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com

– CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry


Filed under: President Bush
soundoff (86 Responses)
  1. my911call, Wilmington, NC

    There are more important and pressing things to pay for 600 billon for the war, Blackwater's contract and his buddies at Halliberton. I guess we know who Bush really cares about. Bush is sucking us dry before he leaves office.

    October 3, 2007 02:08 am at 2:08 am |
  2. steve Loudon, TN

    I took care of my childrens medical needs and I make 1375/month and my wife earns $6000 annually or about a total of $22000. I do not want anyone giving me or other Americans a free ride or stealing from them to give to me and my children. There are many other ways for medical coverage to be provided to children including personal funding, relatives assistance, loans, responsible care and individual responsibility to assure that in the current unwarranted expansion that would allow persons earning up to $83,000 annually to take (steal)funds to provide for care that they can certainly afford. I only wish I could have such an income, but I am disabled and unable to work, refuse any stolen money from other hard working Americans..I simply asked for the contributions I made to the Medicare system to be returned to me (only my own) so I could be the provider I am. Of course, my stolen money went to those making 10x my meager pension disability (which has no COL provision). VETO this theft and leave us alone you thieving DEMOC"RATS". or better yet, submit to exactly the same provisions the rest of America lives with for health and retirement benefits. Wouldn't that run off the crooks in a hurry. Never saw a poor politician in my life, especially after stealing millions during their tenure.

    October 3, 2007 06:46 am at 6:46 am |
  3. AJ; Montpelier, VT

    What a looser.

    October 3, 2007 08:33 am at 8:33 am |
  4. Kate Portland OR

    Harry Reid brought his Grandson to the Senate floor to play on the emotions of the people. He does this while telling lies and slandering people. Is this how Reid wants his Grandson to remember him?

    October 3, 2007 09:28 am at 9:28 am |
  5. RightyTighty

    BUSH VETOES DEM MIDDLECLASS HAT TRICK

    SMACK DOWN of the week since an override is OTT, "Off The Table"

    October 3, 2007 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
  6. Fran McPherson

    Sure, you should get out of town. You coward! What a mess you are.

    October 3, 2007 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  7. Jo, ATL GA

    First of all you don't live in Boston if you did, is your health care is well founded by the state. If you are a middle class how much do you pay for you and your family's health? Please post.

    Is it from the state? Where you pay $15 per child? Or $250/bi weekly from your employer?

    Get the facts? You must be a retard to think its better to pay $250 per family weekly for some or bi-weekly.

    The facts? The increase is not coming from tax payers but sale of cigarrettes... I guess your High school level Limburg did not tell you that. Please read for yourself and stop listening to Rush or Hennedy...They are lying to you.

    October 3, 2007 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  8. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Terry – El Paso

    You wrote,

    "Likewise, I don't think that people who cannot define socialism, have never read a book on socialism, never looked up socialism in the encyclopedia, and never met a socialist call people socialists. "

    Terry – let's have a little "education" on the subject of Socialism. The definition:

    Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

    Now let's look at the application of Socialism in America:

    1. The present tax structure requires the top 10% of wage earners pay almost 70% of the total taxes collected (they pay the bills). Lower and middle income wager earners (66% of the population) pay for only 10% of the tax obligation. The USE most of the services – while paying a disproportionally low amount of the bill.

    2) Social Security (government sponsored retirement)

    3) Welfare (government sponsored income for unemployed women/children)

    4) Medicaid (government sponsored health insurance for low-income)

    5) Medicare (government sponsored health insurance for retired people)

    6) CHP, Headstart, School Lunch Programs, Section-8 housing, etc – government programs to help low-income.

    NOW... Hillary & Co want to:
    – $5000 baby bond (for college)
    – Universal Healthcare
    – Amnesty for illegal immigrants (so they can collect all these benefits)

    AGAIN – the top 10% of wage earners (over $100,000) pay for 70% of the bills!

    What do you call this if not a path to socialism??

    October 3, 2007 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  9. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    Bush says we dont have $7 billion a year for this children insurance. Meanwhile, Bush has spent over $700 billion on the meaninglsss Iraq war.

    What a shame.

    October 3, 2007 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm |
  10. Ryan Indianapolis

    Bush-haters unite! What will you do when this man leaves office? Who will ever replace him in your hearts? I will be so sad for that empty space you all have not being able to be consumed by your hatred of the "evil" one.
    You know what? I'm middle class and worked 2 job to put myself through college and my parents, who were not wealthy by any means, worked hard to put me through so I wouldn't end up with massive student loans.
    My husband and I made the choice to have two children who we have spent the last 20 years melding into healthy, kind, considerate, law-abiding people. 20 years of outrageous dr's bills and shoddy health insurance…20 years is a long time before George Bush entered office, but somehow it's all his fault. Blame it on George, he's a moron! But you know what? Look at stats, who has the out of wedlock babies (not baby) that she (cuz he's out of there) cannot afford? Who overwhelmingly continue to smoke and abuse alcohol and drugs? The poor. Which group doesn't practice birth control, although its been preached to them and is readily available, and cannot feed or cloth their children, let alone pay for insurance? The poor. Yet they just keep having more, and then their kids do the same, and their kids, and so on.
    Stop blaming Bush for people's inability to make appropriate decisions in their lives, i.e., can I afford to have children?? And stop making people like me pay for the poor who continue to make poor decisions and overload our country with more children they can't take care of, so the rest of us have to step up to the plate! Put the blame squarely on the shoulders of people unable to support themselves, let alone, the children they keep giving birth to when they are already living in poverty! The government is no more responsible for their kids then it is for mine!

    Posted By Kay, Las Vegas, NV : October 2, 2007 5:33 pm

    Amen, Blame BUSH ABOUT AND EVERYTHING is getting very old and is just an excuse for these liberals worthless meaningless lives.....GW is not the problem LIBERALS, I know you cant help it LIBERALISM IS A DISEASE

    October 3, 2007 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  11. David, Gilbert Arizona

    Posted By John from America: "3 times the poverty level – and that's a lot of money? NOT!"

    $17,000 X 3 = $51,000

    That annual income is in the middle class income level. A family earning this type of income is more than likely being provided insurance through the company they work for. Does the government need to be funding the insurance needs for children living in a middle class home?

    The majority of the comments posted here are knee jerk reactions to a headline without doing one ounce of research. Rely solely on the media for all your information. Hillary loves voters like you. Talk about the dumbing down of America.

    October 3, 2007 03:06 pm at 3:06 pm |
1 2 3 4