So wait a minute, don't the states have the right to set the limits and override the federal government?

I think Bush is setting himself and the GOP up for a big fall on this one.

I have to be against this, because of the lack of logic and constitutionality. The 10th Amendment clearly spells out that this is a state issue. Even Congress says that it is a 'state' insurance program. Why do we need the federal government to tax the people, then redistribute the money amongst the states? At a cost higher than, allowing the states to have the funding source, and apply it at a $1 match themselves? It just seems a little overreaching and inefficient in my humble opinion. However, the arguement can be made that the states wouldn't do it without the federal government on its back. Which I would counter with --- the federal government once upon a time listened to the states, and NOT vice versa. But when the 17th amendment was introduced and ratified, the states lost all form of identity and sovereignty to the federal government except for its borders with other states. Today the federal government tells the states what to do. It acts as if it is supreme to the people and to its sovereign 'nations' that are within. I tremble to the core, when I think of how disappointed the founders would be with todays federal government --- and the power they have to boss the states that MAKE it up, around. Shame of Washington DC.

If expansion of any act of the government is to take place, let it be expansion of Executive Order #12612.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Order:

(a) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

(b) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States or America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:

(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.

(b) The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States.

All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.

(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

(e) In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. In Thomas Jefferson's words, the States are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."

(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.

(g) Acts of the national government--whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature--that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.

(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of--and should encourage opportunities for--individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.

(i) In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:

(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Executive departments and agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. To the extent practicable, the States should be consulted before any such action is implemented. Executive Order No. 12372 ("Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs") remains in effect for the programs and activities to which it is applicable.

(b) Federal action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States should be taken only where constitutional authority for the action is clear and certain and the national activity is necessitated by the presence of a problem of national scope. For the purposes of this Order:

(1) It is important to recognize the distinction between problems of national scope (which may justify Federal action) and problems that are merely common to the States (which will not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, can effectively deal with them).

(2) Constitutional authority for Federal action is clear and certain only when authority for the action may be found in a specific provision of the Constitution, there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting Federal action, and the action does not encroach upon authority reserved to the States.

(c) With respect to national policies administered by the States, the national government should grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible. Intrusive, Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable.

(d) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall:

(1) Encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives and to work with appropriate officials in other States.

(2) Refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from establishing uniform, national standards for programs and, when possible, defer to the States to establish standards.

(3) When national standards are required, consult with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in developing those standards.

Sec. 4 Special Requirements for Preemption. (a) To the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.

(b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), Executive departments and agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rule-making only when the statute expressly authorizes issuance of preemptive regulations or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended to delegate to the department or agency the authority to issue regulations preempting State law.

(c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.

(d) As soon as an Executive department or agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the department or agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in an effort to avoid such a conflict.

(e) When an Executive department or agency proposes to act through adjudication or rule-making to preempt State law, the department or agency shall provide all affected States notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.

Sec. 5. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals. Executive departments and agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would:

(a) Directly regulate the States in ways that would interfere with functions essential to the States' separate and independent existence or operate to directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions;

(b) Attach to Federal grants conditions that are not directly related to the purpose of the grant; or

(c) Preempt State law, unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, and unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism policymaking criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met.

Sec. 6. Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this Order.

(b) In addition to whatever other actions the designated official may take to ensure implementation of this Order, the designated official shall determine which proposed policies have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. With respect to each such policy for which an affirmative determination is made, a Federalism Assessment, as described in subsection

(c) of this section, shall be prepared. The department or agency head shall consider any such Assessment in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing the policy.

(c) Each Federalism Assessment shall accompany any submission concerning the policy that is made to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 or OMB Circular No. A-19, and shall:

(1) Contain the designated official's certification that the policy has been assessed in light of the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(2) Identify any provision or element of the policy that is inconsistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(3) Identify the extent to which the policy imposes additional costs or burdens on the States, including the likely source of funding for the States and the ability of the States to fulfill the purposes of the policy; and

(4) Identify the extent to which the policy would affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions, or other aspects of State sovereignty.

Sec. 7. Government-wide Federalism Coordination and Review. (a) In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order.

(b) In submissions to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 and OMB Circular No. A-19, Executive departments and agencies shall identify proposed regulatory and statutory provisions that have significant federalism implications and shall address any substantial federalism concerns. Where the departments or agencies deem it appropriate, substantial federalism concerns should also be addressed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress.

Sec. 8 Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

(who wants to be the first to look up who wrote this? and throw up after you find it so agreeable)

Book of the day: "What would the Founders do? (Our questions, their answers)" by Richard Brookhiser.

As a liberal Christian all I can say is that Bush should be ashamed of himself. This is not something Christ would approve of. It's a disgrace that he would do this to the children. If this doesn't motivate voters to get out and vote Democratic in 2008 I don't know what will. Bush can give tax cuts to big business and big oil companies yet deny children healthcare. This administration without a doubt will go down as the worst in the history of the country!

Posted by DemocratKickingAss on August 21, 2007 at 01:21 PM ....I agree....Bush has a hatred for unions, for working people and for all children...In short, he hates most Americans...He's in the jerk of the universe class,....I can't wait until he's gone and we have a Democratic President!!

Why on earth would we be surprised by Ronny's executive order or find it agreeable for that matter? The conservatives under Reagan wanted to limit the Fed and put power back into the States for the same reason Liberals wanted to take it away from the States. In those days a more Liberal Fed was able to enforce things which many conservative states opposed such as apportion, civil rights, education, de-segregation, emancipation, etc.

Now that the right-wing controls the White House, Court, and until recently the Congress, we Liberals push for State’s rights so places like Massachusetts don’t have to enforce Washington’s particular brand of hate. At the same time the right has pushed to increase Federal power.

After the 2008 election everyone roles will switch again. State’s rights has always been more of a tool than a philosophy. Best example, every conservative member of the Supreme Court (all of whom breached States over the Feds) voted against Florida’s right to determine the election results in their own State and thus overturn the Florida Supreme Court. While, all the big government liberals voted for the State to conduct the 2000 election by the State’s rules.

As for this issue, healthcare for children is too important to leave completely in the hands of individual States. Also too important for Bush to be allowed to touch for that matter. As with most things, (Minimum wage being the best example of where it does work and environmental regulations being the best example of where it should be used more) the smart move is setting federal minimums and letting States work up from there.

Don't be bad mouthing Jimmy. He was possibly the only actual good person to hold the office, which may explain why he was ineffective. He put his office and his Country before himself, and did not engage in the Washington backstabbing and dirty pool. He did not think the ends justified the means or that creating his legacy was the purpose of governing. He genuinely cared about people and tried to above all do the right thing. In other words he lacked the all qualities necessary to be President. We do not have to worry about someone like that ever getting into the White House again. Well unless Kucinich pulls off a miracle.

Will this report be on all the National Papers, Radio, TV Stations?

Once Blind, what form of sight do you have now? I wish you wouldn't take up all our posting space in this Blog. No one listens to a Republican. Haven't you learn that yet? All I saw was your name and recognized it as a fable.

Once_blind_now_deaf_and_dumb_too:

Which founding fathers are you alluding to? Name names. For every founding father that was a proponent of what we now call "states rights" there was another founding father who argued for a strong central government. The Constitutional Convention was convened, after all, because a loose confederation of states had virtually failed. There was anything but unanimity of philosophy among the "founding fathers" as to what the proper role of a central government ought to be. Read Catherine Drinker Bowen's account of the constitutional convention. If there was one concept to which they generally adhered as a group, it is that the constitution of our government ought not to be chiseled from granite and left unchanged in perpetuity. After all, they provided with no debate at all for amendments to the constitution.

If there's anything the founding fathers would find offensive, I think it would be the modern day conservatives' entirely fraudulent position that we ought to govern ourselves now, first and foremost, by pledging blind allegiance to the personal views of a few dozen men who lived two hundred years ago. They, as true revolutionaries, would find that kind of thinking absolutely shocking, I'm sure.

What an interesting exchange today!
I firmly agree that setting a national standard for children's healthcare and the source of funding for the program should be the federal government.
The pendulum needs to swing the other way on behalf of working people in our nation who don't make enough to meet their deductibles and co-pays. We must include, at bare minimum, the children of families who work hard but just can't pay the climbing medical costs. Many of us hard working Americans already put off medical care because we have not been able to pay our bills from one or two years ago. Illness is not something anyone PLANS for. Yet many of us have to make a choice between paying the mortgage or paying off an overdue medical bill. President Bush and the neocons claim that SCHIP is a slippery slope to national healthcare. I fervently hope so. President Bush claims that such a healthcare program will lead to rationing of healthcare. With our current system that is JUST WHAT IS HAPPENING.
Ask the people who do not have access to a 2nd or 3rd round of chemo or are in need of further mental health evaluations but their insurance company has said they have met their policy limit.
I know change can not happen quickly on such an important and far-reaching problem as fixing healthcare delivery in our country. Perhaps a veto-proof vote in the Senate for the SCHIP appropriation will be the first important step. I sure hope so.

donmarscd5 -

President Bush is also on record as saying we have an excellent health care system, and argues that anyone can "go to the emergency room" if they need medical care. This is what compassionate conservatism has to say about health care in the US, which is by some accounts ranked worse than 30th among the world's nations. To hell with preventative care - just go to the emergency room when you're spitting up blood because a tumor was caught two years too late, or if your kid can't breathe because of an asthma attack that could have been prevented with a relatively cheap inhaler. Then, the political supporters of those same compassionate conservatives can bitch about lax immigration policies and "socialized medicine " because some Spanish speaking family is "ahead of them in line in the emergency room because they have the sniffles" (a line being used here in Boston to promote a conservative talk radio show on WRKO).

And as for catastrophic health care, this asshole we call president is still humping the idea that the federal government ought to foot the bill for everything after the individual has paid $5,000 out of pocket. So what he's proposing is that we all subsidize a sweet medical insurance program for the nauseatingly rich who can afford an annual $5,000 deductible - and that on a no-premium insurance policy! Free markets? Pshaw! All he wants to free up is the purse strings to the federal treasury so that his pig friends can slop it dry. He's all for free market forces ruling, UNLESS he can slip through a medical pinata for his fat cat friends. Then he shows himself to be the biggest bleed and borrow fraud of all time.

Compassionate conservatism...what a load of shit.

However...while the Democratic candidates and the Democratic party are currently arguing about how we can more broadly implement SCHIP, let's take a moment to recall that it was Governor Dean who first made this proposal four years ago, and when he did the stalwarts of the Democratic Party all shit on his head. Some party of the people, this.

I am certain that States will be able to get 95% of those eleigible to sign in for health care. I doubt, however, that it will make a diference to Republicans generally to increse the numbers of those who can be enrolled by changing the poverty guidelines. They seem to have a wild west bunker mentality where they would rather spend trillions in other countries but not spend even less here under some pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo that is classed based and says your suffering is good. It doesn't really effect me.

Baron Scarpia: It's pretty hard to get 95% of the people to sign up.
A lot of people who are elgible won't sign up because they can't take off work to go sign up, they can't even take off work to take their kids to the doctor(I've had an employer like that, got fired because I did, though that wasn't what he told the state unemployment agency)), they don't believe in welfare, they don't think they really need the program they'll get a better job soon. Or, they don't care because they're alcoholics/drug addicts, they don't believe in doctors. Or even with statewide "get your kids on CHIP" media campaign, haven't heard, or don't believe their elgible even if they are. Or some other excuse that I haven't even thought of.
The Bushies know that it's an unreasonable number, and that's why they picked it.
George W. Bush does not care about kids. He feels that insurance companies are more important than the lives and the health of our kids. That's a "pro-life" "pro-family" Republican for you.

Amen, Butte. If you want to know where Bush stands on an issue, find the CEO's of the 5 largest companies that will be affected by it, and ask them their opinion. There you will find Bush's policy.

If you could make abortion into a multi-billion dollar business, Bush would be arguing for a per-abortion tax credit.

Bush and his cronies are so out of touch with regular Americans that they have no context in which they can make comparisons. Let's have Bush and Cheney spend one year living as an American family of 4 living on an income of $50,000 and trying to deal with health insurance, particularly if they have a chronically ill child. Any doubts about this? If so, take a long look at our hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast (from 2 years ago) to see what this administration has done to help those in need there. (There must not be as much oil in the American Gulf as was once thought!)

Oh, the oil wells in the Gulf are up and running and doing just fine, it's the non-oil people who are still hurting, which is most Gulf coast residents.
Bush and cronies have not only never been in touch, they don't give a rat's patootie about ever getting in touch.
They are products of the egocentric uber-rich spoiled brat up bringing which has also brought you Paris Hilton. The difference between the two is that Hilton is a danger to herself, Bush is a danger to the whole country!
I'm tired of signing petitions that keep getting ignored!
IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY NOW!!!!!!

Published on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 by The Huffington Post
Smashing Capitalism
by Barbara Ehrenreich

Somewhere in the Hamptons a high-roller is cursing his cleaning lady and shaking his fists at the lawn guys. The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.

First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract. There were “NINJA” loans, for example, awarded to people with “no income, no job or assets.” Conservative columnist Niall Fergusen laments the low levels of “economic literacy” that allowed people to be exploited by sub-prime loans. Why didn’t these low-income folks get lawyers to go over the fine print? And don’t they have personal financial advisors anyway?

Then, in a diabolically clever move, the poor - a category which now roughly coincides with the working class - stopped shopping. Both Wal-Mart and Home Depot announced disappointing second quarter performances, plunging the market into another Arctic-style meltdown. H. Lee Scott, CEO of the low-wage Wal-Mart empire, admitted with admirable sensitivity, that “it’s no secret that many customers are running out of money at the end of the month.”

I wish I could report that the current attack on capitalism represents a deliberate strategy on the part of the poor, that there have been secret meetings in break rooms and parking lots around the country, where cell leaders issued instructions like, “You, Vinny - don’t make any mortgage payment this month. And Caroline, forget that back-to-school shopping, OK?” But all the evidence suggests that the current crisis is something the high-rollers brought down on themselves.

When, for example, the largest private employer in America, which is Wal-Mart, starts experiencing a shortage of customers, it needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. About a century ago, Henry Ford realized that his company would only prosper if his own workers earned enough to buy Fords. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, never seemed to figure out that its cruelly low wages would eventually curtail its own growth, even at the company’s famously discounted prices.

The sad truth is that people earning Wal-Mart-level wages tend to favor the fashions available at the Salvation Army. Nor do they have much use for Wal-Mart’s other departments, such as Electronics, Lawn and Garden, and Pharmacy.

It gets worse though. While with one hand the high-rollers, H. Lee Scott among them, squeezed the American worker’s wages, the other hand was reaching out with the tempting offer of credit. In fact, easy credit became the American substitute for decent wages. Once you worked for your money, but now you were supposed to pay for it. Once you could count on earning enough to save for a home. Now you’ll never earn that much, but, as the lenders were saying - heh, heh - do we have a mortgage for you!

Pay day loans, rent-to-buy furniture and exorbitant credit card interest rates for the poor were just the beginning. In its May 21st cover story on “The Poverty Business,” BusinessWeek documented the stampede, in the just the last few years, to lend money to the people who could least afford to pay the interest: Buy your dream home! Refinance your house! Take on a car loan even if your credit rating sucks! Financiamos a Todos! Somehow, no one bothered to figure out where the poor were going to get the money to pay for all the money they were being offered.

Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with - European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?

Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.

Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed (Owl), is the winner of the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize.

I have been in nursing for 30 years.The cost of health care is out of reach for the common worker and for me.Why does the hospital I worke for for 18 years own land all over this county ? why are building projects never ending.Why are many buildings that are a few years old torn down to build even larger ones and more parking lots.
Here is an idea
-state pays for 0_20 year old free no questions--feds pay for 62-death free no questions.everybody else pays for them self and family members not working or coveredby state by paying a family premium to an accout that canbe usedby any family member,all employers pay to the account of the family in which their employs belong.this is where the insurance companies can be used
.The state and feds should have there own insurance division run by there employees.divide this mess up and everybody gets part of the pie.insurance premiums get lower as the family uses less money .if ther are more adults in the family using it then the would pay more etc.

Amen, Granny. Something needs to happen. We really need to come up with a workable solution, and all ideas need to be looked at.
Of my five grandkids, as far as I know, only my one granddaughter has insurance and she's on CHIP. Two of them got off their dad's insurance when they turned 18, and I don't think my other daughter and son-in-law has any medical available through his employer.

DAGrady:

I praying and hoping that either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel will pull off a miracle. If the DLC democrats don't sabotage the vote, I believe there is a chance.

OK, Bush is being his usual sociopathic self. What's the next step? What's going to happen when he vetoes this?
Are the Republites in Congress going to roll over and play dead, or are they going to come back and fight for our kids?

I don't want to appear radical, but having said that, as I view the definitions of "fascism" and "democracy" it seems that the Bush administration leans much more to the former than the latter. Pre-war Germany say the growth of radical fascism in the neo-Nazi party. Spying on neighbors, elimination of freedom of the press and speech, all along with racism. See any parallels?