Voting against the children

Dana Milbank:

The United States Senate yesterday was confronted with a stark choice: health care for children, or pet projects for lawmakers' home states.

The final tally?

Pet Projects 68, Kids 26.

In truth, the children never had a chance. "I predicted 24," the measure's sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said cheerfully after his defeat.

It was, Coburn's many opponents grumbled, a political stunt. But, as stunts go, this one was particularly revealing. The Oklahoma physician, a foe of the unhealthy cut of congressional pork known as "earmarks," proposed an amendment to a major health spending bill that said no lawmakers' pet projects would be funded until "all children in the U.S. under the age of 18 years are insured by a private or public health insurance plan."

Among the earmarks this jeopardized:

¿ $130,000 for the National First Ladies' Library in Ohio.

¿ $500,000 for a "Virtual Herbarium" in New York.

¿ $400,000 for the Figge Art Museum in Davenport, Iowa.

¿ $100,000 to celebrate Lake Champlain's quadricentennial.

¿ $500,000 for "field experiences" on the Chesapeake Bay.

¿ $50,000 for an ice center in Utah.

"What this amendment is about is asking the Senate to choose," Coburn informed his colleagues on the Senate floor. "Choose your directed earmarks for back home, or make a statement that says we really believe kids' health care is important."

The senators considered this, then went with the herbarium and the lake party. Only two Democrats -- Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri -- joined Coburn, and fully half of his Republican colleagues turned against him. Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John McCain skipped the vote for the presidential hustings.

In a sense, the 9.5 million kids without health coverage shouldn't feel too bad about the vote. When Coburn proposed a similar amendment to the transportation bill -- blocking earmarks until all "structurally deficient" bridges were repaired -- he got only 14 votes.

But lawmakers on both sides have clearly grown weary of Coburn's efforts to embarrass them; just last week, he irked New York's senators when he succeeded in killing a $1 million earmark for a museum dedicated to the 1969 Woodstock concert.

...

"It seems to me the American public might want to ask why are you earmarking special money for special projects when you have a chance to make sure it will go towards children and really solving the problem?" Coburn taunted. "So this is going to be a tough vote. Kids versus my political career. Kids versus my political power. Kids versus my political earmarks. We're going to see. We're going to get to see what the real priorities of the Senate are."

...

As the other senators did their best to ignore him, Sen. Coburn continues to demonstrate what a national treasure he is. He may not have hypocrisy on the run, but he does have it embarrassed. For Washington, that is progress. In one vote he has demonstrated how hollow the Democrats' case for SCHIP was.