>>>
“The president has been served wrong information about what our bill will do,” Grassley said Thursday between Senate votes. “There’s nothing in our bill that would do that. His understanding of the bill was wrong.”
>>>
I’m going to assume that Grassley was just being diplomatic. Iraq WMD’s aside (and I’m not even sure I’m going to give a complete pass on that) Presidents do not get served wrong information, especially on domestic spending issues.

Note that the thing you linked to on the Corner (“Help us stop Hillary”?!? Seriously? That’s what you have to fight for? This country isn’t moving left, it’s just repulsed by a crazy right) has a quote from the OMB. Formerly headed by Mitch Daniels, currently the SCHIP-loving governor of Indiana.
There are no policy are ideological grounds left for defenders of the Bush administration. It’s 100% pure tribalism from the 28 percenters.

John E. – yes, pure diplomacy but also a bit of a slap as in, “surely he must have been mislead for no one could be that dishonest”…

The Acton Institute uses the $83,000 figure as well. They say the State of NY asked for that ceiling while the other states got a $63,000 figure. Are these figures inaccurate? They both seem high to me–would that mean my taxes are subsidizing health care for people who make considerably more than I do?

It’s almost getting to the point where diplomacy is wearing thin…
Republicans are at their breaking points, in some cases.
This is no longer conservatism, or ethics, or religious scruples; it’s an administration run amok, and many are trying to figure out how to jump ship without being caught in the undertow.
Some on this blog may disagree (“may” is an understatement), but currently, I’ve never been happier to call myself a liberal Democrat.

Not to say Bush didn’t make a mistake in vetoing the bill but it seems as though you are just taking one persons word over another. Is there a way to actually see what the bill says, as opposed to another politician?

Kevin – the answer to your question – I believe – is yes. The larger point is this – hyper partisan groups like Action all sing off the White House talking points. I know this because I used to write them. And what the WH is trying to do is grotesquely distort what would be, even if true – and it isn’t true – a trivial fact (insofar as it would have been a tiny fraction of the dollars spent). It is great politics – it makes it seem like the WH is taking the high ground. They aren’t. They are lying and distorting and screwing the poor and that is a tragedy and a moral horror.
James – Grassley is the ranking member of the Finance Committee – he knows of what he speaks. And he is a fiercely partisan man. He carried the water for all of Bush’s tax cuts. When he says they were removed it is safe to say they are removed.
To everyone – I am obviously fired up about this. BUT I have to say this. My frustration and anger represent my political frustration and anger. I do not bring Jesus into this and say that he is on my side and that I am right and that whoever disagrees with me is going against God. Far be it for me to say that. I hope that distinction makes sense.

[From the White House veto message to Congress]: “[T]he current bill goes too far toward federalizing health care and turns a program meant to help low-income children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. If H.R. 976 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill.
“However, no such proposal exists. The $83,000 figure comes from a request from New York to cover children in some slightly higher-income households because of the state’s high cost of living, but the final Congressional agreement put the poorest children “first in line” for benefits.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/83000-schip/
“America’s Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the measure yesterday, undercutting Bush’s contention that the bill is a step away from private insurance and toward government-run health care.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401562_pf.html
Plus, especially when Republicans like Grassley, Hatch, Heather Wilson, and Ray LaHood all support it, the burden of proof for the outlandish claims leveled against it ought to be on the makers of outlandish claim, not the debunkers. And only the imaginary straw man Democrats that live in Sean Hannity’s head would push something that does what the WH claims.
David, your distinction is clear. Everyone has moral principles, usually derived in whole or in part from their religious beliefs, that undergird their policy views. In a pluralistic democracy, the claims for or against a certain policy proposal should stand on their own, though, and not be contingent on assent to any sectarian claims.
In this instance, the president has changed his reason for opposing the bill– which is part of why Sen. Grassley is so upset– apparently for no other reason than that he feels like it.

Bush lying?!? I’m shocked.

You should be more forthcoming and just tell us why you have this vendetta on President Bush and the GOP.
It makes no sense – when you compare what Jesus said and what the Apostles wrote – to support the Democrats.
Your blog – like that of Jim Wallis – claims to be a Christian one. Though your blog is lees an insult to the Faith of the Apostles than the 100% partisan Democrat effort of that Leftist.
Don’t try to wiggle out of that and just justify your position with support of “Biblical” scripture. This would be in keeping with “Walking with Jesus.”
Which of course will be difficult since what Bush did was a government action, because the Libs all scream bloody murder when you mix religion and state. Supposedly anyway. It seems Leftist religion is given a pass.
Is that why you are supporting Progressives now? They get to mix their (pagan/secular) religion with government?

Donny, let me try.
John 3:14 clearly states “and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” and let’s consider, have you ever seen a Republican hold up a snake? Literally, no, but figuratively, yes. No one who takes the bible literally should support the Bush-figurative-pagan veto of SCHIP. Bush is a metaphorical Christian, not a “true” one.
Man, this stuff practically writes itself!

Well Doug, that’s your best attempt at scripture supporting Liberals and Progressives?
Your position would have validity “if” Liberals were Christians, and if it made some kind of sense. But Liberals and Progressives pick and choose what is and what isn’t “really” in the Bible and the rest they alter whenever they want to to inflict some heresy onto a mob of hedonists. The hippies are still Liberal Democrats, but have changed their stripes to “Progressive.”
George Bush is dealing with the reality of Satan controlling much of the world. Remember Satan’s conversation with Christ Jesus? Remember what Paul said about dealing with “powers and principalities?”
Mr. Bush is dealing with the halls of Congress and those ruling Islamic, African, Latin and European and communist countries. He has done well in my opinion.
Progressives and Liberals (the Democrats) desire more than anything else to force their totalitarian communism into every facet of American life.

>>>”But Liberals and Progressives pick and choose what is and what isn’t “really” in the Bible…” Donny
Donny, Over on “God’s Politics” you were just pontificating how the members of the early church weren’t known as Christians – apparently Acts 11:16-28 isn’t in your Bible which, come to think of it, shouldn’t really be all that surprising. Your postings are regular reminders that there’s a lot of stuff missing from whatever Marcionite version of the Bible you bow down to every morning!

No, Donny. My position was satire and wouldn’t have validity under any circumstances.
My point was just because you quote scripture and then make declarative statements doesn’t mean you’ve proven anything scripturally. I can’t remember the exact quote but Kafka said something along the lines that metaphors can express ideas but don’t prove them.

Incidentally, Donny, I’m not trying to attack you as a person or your values, but I find your posts frustrating. When I read such certainty and aggression with suck reckless reasoning I tend to reflexively consider the speaker a fool or worse. I consider you intelligent and something of a friend and would feel a lot better for you if your posts were more persuasive, whether or not they persuade me or other readers.