If it's About the Children then Why Doesn't the Money Get to Them?

President Bush's veto of an SCHIP funding bill led to the predictable charges that he and his fellow Republicans are callous to the plight of children. That in turn resulted in some blog responses that revelaed an important feature of SCHIP. SCHIP stands for the States Children's Health Insurance Program but do not allow yourself to believe that funds marked for SCHIP end up funding health insurance for children. If you decide to believe that then you mmight have an emotionally satisfying feeling that coincides with your view of Bush and republicans but the funding part of the belief would not necessarily accord with the facts. Michells Malkin's blog entry, Democrat poster-child abuse, the nutroots’ pushback, and the continued campaign to silence the Right, contains this informative bit of data courtesy of the United States government:

"According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data"

But why would SCHIP money go to adults who have no children? The answer can be found here. Quoting:

"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and is administered by the States. Within broad Federal guidelines, each State determines the design of its program, eligibility groups, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative and operating procedures. SCHIP provides a capped amount of funds to States on a matching basis for Federal fiscal years (FY) 1998 through 2007. Federal payments under title XXI to States are based on State expenditures under approved plans effective on or after October 1, 1997."

Look at that- jointly financed within broad Federal guidelines allowing each state to determine eligibility groups. Why is that fact not trumpted by those "concerned about the children?" Instead of engaging in political gamesmanship why doesn't the congress ensure that tax dollars intended for children actually benefit children? If they lack the willpower then can critics at least cease the sanctimonious chatter about concern for children? Maybe in an ideal world they would but in an ideal world funds marked for children would get to the children.