Out of touch Jim Saxton- again

Today's Times of Trenton had a nice juxtaposition on pg. A7. At the top of the page is an article about Jim Saxton voting against children's health insurance and the Democrats targeting him to change his vote: ( I can't find the article on NJ.com, but since it's an AP piece, here it is at the Home News Tribune.)

Rep. Jim Saxton, R-3rd Dist., cast one of 159 nay votes in the House on the bipartisan bill subsidizing health care for children and families. Though the measure passed with 265 votes, it's still 15 votes shy to override a presidential veto.
President Bush vetoed the bill Wednesday. A veto-override vote has not been scheduled.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began running radio ads Monday targeting Saxton and seven others they view as vulnerable in the next election, hoping to spark voter ire and, ultimately, change their votes, said committee spokeswoman Carrie James.
...
"The Democrats are clearly using children and children's health care as a political tool as they gear up toward an election," (Saxton spokesperson Jeff) Hollendonner said. "It has been well-known for months President Bush would not accept something with such high spending."

Well, Bush wouldn't accept something that helps American children with such high spending; he's willing to shovel money at Iraq, though.

Oh, sorry, went off subject there. Anyway, back to my morning paper: at the bottom of pg. A7 is a Newhouse article about a survey done by the Rutgers Center for State Heatlth Policy: (here, from the Star Ledger:)

Concern about the availability of health insurance runs so deep that a majority of New Jerseyans would support a tax increase to guarantee benefits, a new survey revealed yesterday. Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), who is preparing legislation to provide universal health care coverage in the state, said he was greatly encouraged by the poll.
...
While it isn't clear Vitale's legislation will require tax increases, the Rutgers survey showed 57.1 percent would support some tax increase to ensure that everyone has health insurance they can't lose. It found 47.9 percent said they would accept an increase larger than $500 annually to fix the nagging social problem.

So, Rep. Jim Saxton, and Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, and Rep. Scott Garrett, your constituents here in Our Fair State are so concerned about health insurance they'd be willing to accept a tax increase to pay for it. Did'ja see that? Do you care about what Our Fair State's residents actually want before you vote, or are you just willing to fall into Bush Lockstep?

Cross-posted at Bluejersey