President Bush's veto of the ill-advised SCHIP expansion is causing wailing and weeping in state capitols across the country.

Nationally, Democrats see electoral gold in the president's veto. After all, isn't it prima facie evidence that Republicans hate children?

In Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano "I'm disappointed. We're talking about health insurance for children here." On the other hand, Rep. John Shadegg, said that SCHIP should remain focused on "poor kids first ." Count that as a support for the veto of the expansionary legislation.

Colorado officials say that plans to expand their Medicaid-for-children will be put on hold. In its article on the subject, the Denver Post mentions that the percentage of children with private insurance has gone down while the percentage of children on government aid has gone up in the last ten years. The Post obtains those numbers from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an advocate of expanding the role for government health care. Too bad it didn't ask if there was any link between the two changing numbers, such as crowding out.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution finds a family (assisted by Families USA, perhaps?) on the SCHIP rolls in Georgia. Proving that bad ideas can draw bipartisan support, the paper points out that Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, supports SCHIP.

Iowa's Sen. Charles Grassley is one of the program's chief boosters. The Republican will be lobbying on behalf of an override. The Des Moines Register article on the subject gives an example of how SCHIP is no longer for the poor: "Under a waiver granted by the federal government, the state permits families to disallow 20 percent of their earned income to qualify, in an effort to insure more children. So an Iowa family of four could actually earn up to $51,625 and still receive subsidized care." A spokesman for Gov. Chet Culver said 'there should be no debate about kicking kids off health insurance."

OK, I'll debate: we should be kicking kids off government health insurance and working to make it easier for the parents to obtain insurance on their own. That's better for people as taxpayers, it's better for people insured in the private market right now, and by thwarting the expansion of Medicaid--generally not the way that you would want to receive health care, if you had a choice--it's better for the intended beneficiaries.

Don't you just love the way that the Louisville Courier-Journal describes advocates of political health care in its "here's what's happening in Kentucky " article. It says that one group denouncing the veto is "Kentuckians for a Single Payer Health Care, which advocates broader health-care coverage." Sure. Broader health care coverage. Which means....? "Broader" just might mean "more use of the private sector." If we actually were serious about trying that out.

It says that " The message of the rally could be summarized by a couple of signs that read: "HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE."

How about this, folks: You may not like the Iraq war. Or any war. But making the making of war is one power specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Distorting and then supplanting the private insurance market is not.

On the other hand, Rep. Richard Baker of Baton Rouge, once burned, was shy about the expansion. Scratch that, he got it right. Baker, who voted for the first installment of SCHIP during the Bill Clinton years, said "I refuse to make this program a middle-class entitlement."

One note in the news coverage from the Baton Rouge Advocate inadvertently points to one problem with SCHIP: "The Louisiana program costs $144 million — including about $30.5 million from the state." State officials can easily "do something" about health care while depending on the feds to provide most of the money. (Of course, "doing something" brings any number of ill effects, but hey, at least we're doing it for the children!)