Corrupting Free Society, One Child At A Time

For every sequence of events, there is always more than one perspective which can be had. Another way of putting that is to say that the truth has three 'sides': your side, his side, and fact. Today, I hope to take you on a little journey through the mind of someone who hates President Bush, but loves his vetoing of the SCHIP renewal bill.

I know, I know -- it's hard to understand. How could someone want to make the children suffer, like that? How could I be such a heartless bastard? Am I truly so selfish that I'd rather have a few extra dollars than see the nation's poverty-stricken children have quality healthcare?

In a single word: No. No, I'm not that heartless -- no I'm not that greedy, and no, I don't want to see the poor suffer. And yet, I still stand against the new SCHIP bill. I understand that for the majority of you reading this, this must seem somewhat confusing, if true -- so either I'm a liar or I'm mislead. Right? It occurs to me that I'm getting somewhat ahead of myself here, so perhaps I ought to do a little bit of explanation as to what this whole SCHIP thing is really about. Take, for example, this piece from Sunday, Oct. 7^th, 2007, found in the New York Times:

Democrats believe they have Republicans — short on campaign cash, contending with a spurt of retirements and quarreling — on the run over the legislation, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly as Election Day looms a year from now.

[...]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking on eight Republicans in competitive districts with a series of automated calls and radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state.

Beginning Monday, a coalition of liberal and labor groups will start a $1 million advertising effort, with a national advertisement to run on cable channels and local advertisements aimed at specific lawmakers. The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.” It says Mr. Bush puts excessive war spending over health care at home.

“The president’s ‘yes men’ in Congress need to stand up to Bush and stand up for families who work hard but simply can’t afford insurance,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, one group leading the effort.

There's so much here that there's really no way to account for it all, up front. But let's begin with a few tiny points:

1: "The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.”"

Am I, honestly, the only person left in the world whom is disgusted by the continued exploitation of those who can't possibly understand what they're being used for, simply for cheap promotionals like this? Look, we get it: You kissed the baby; you're a good, caring guy. You can stop now.

2: "radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state."

Talk about talking out the side of your face. So, we are to believe, because our government employees are receiving healthcare from their employer (the government), they are bad people for denying public assistance to non government employees?

3: "Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly"

Once again, we are told that SCHIP only benefits the poor children of the nation. And yes, primarily, this is true. But the existence of SCHIP isn't what's up for debate here: Bush himself wants SCHIP renewed.The White House is stressing that Bush wants the CHIP program renewed and wants to increase its current level by $5 billion over five years, but Bush wants it to target poor children. The compromise includes some children in levels above the poverty line.

By way of explanation of what possible madness could be going through the nation's Idiot-in-Chief's head, that he could demand that SCHIP "target poor children", please consider: SCHIP in its current form provides insurance for those who have an income of up to 200% the federal poverty line. The expanded/renewed form will take that number to 400%; for the 'prototypical' family of 4 (2 parents, 2 children), that's an income of ~$82,600 -- For a single-parent single-child household, that number is ~$54,760. (All from the same, most recently linked, source. See Table 2.) All this number-crunching, however, is meaningless without something to compare it against. The best number to do so, the most revealing, is the median average income of the United States. That number, as of 2004, was $44,334 -- as reported by the US Census.

Now, ask yourself, people: Is the average home in America poor and in need of government handouts in order to get "quality care"? As a corollary, if it is, is a simple handout going to fix that problem? As a secondary corollary: If things are that bad, can we afford for the government to be the agency we rely upon?

By way of insight, I provide this reference to a previous article, "The Tyranny of Compassion":

Foreign aid was first put into practice almost sixty years ago, under the Truman Administration, in 1948. What has been the result of essentially six decades of attempted monetary aid in Africa? Practically the entire continent remains in squalor. Why, precisely, is this? How is it even possible? The general sentiment on this issue falls into two lines:

• One: We just haven't spent enough; if only we rich Westerners would be willing to sacrifice a little more in the name of compassion, we could turn that continent around tomorrow!
• Two: We are suppressing the entrepeneurial spirit and creating reliance, thus destroying prosperity and hope for a better future.

Which of these is correct? Well, six decades have taught us that there is no amount which will be the magic bullet to cure Africa's economic woes.

Now, all of this has been somewhat heavy-handed. And I can understand if you haven't followed through to the end here, but for those of you whom have, I have just one last query/insight/thought: It is said that the measure of what power we ought allow into the hands of government is to consider what the worst person possible would do with it. To those of you whom think things like SCHIP are so necessary that a little over-spending or universal healthcare under the radar concerns are simply silly, I profer this: the "Christian Right" is poising itself to exploit government compassion efforts as a tool for its takeover of American society. Considering that private agencies -- such as charities like the Christian Children's Fund -- could be established to provide for the nation's children, I ask you: is it really worth the risk of expanding SCHIP like this, if it opens the door for a fundamentalist theocracy in America?

I, for one, do not welcome our new religious overlords.