It’s good to be a politician…especially if you’re one who thinks being in public office is an excuse to spend recklessly. On the other hand, if you scrutinize the spending on a popular bill, you must have something against those who benefit from the legislation in question…to which I say, “duh”; but not for the reason you think.
I read an article today entitled, GOP slams Bush pledge to veto child health care; The Courier-Journal, September 21, 2007, A- section. (Yeah, I know it’s dated, so what?) The article in question clearly shows that neither Congress nor the president gives a damn about fiscal responsibility–an obvious fact to anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Eight years of Bush and the neoconservative movement have really given us all something to crow about. But hey, let’s not forget they had a lot of help from the Democratic Party.
First, Congress, in the writing of this bill, made sure that families who are privileged got coverage. How privileged? I’m glad you asked; apparently, “children in families with incomes of as much as $83,000 a year” qualify for benefits under the plan.
According to the article, this was Bush’s primary objection to the legislation…and I agree with him. In fact, I’ll go one further than that. The government has no business subsidizing health care to/for anyone. That’s right. Unless you’re a veteran, it’s NOT the federal government’s responsibility to finance your health care. And you thought I was going to give you that Bush compassionate conservative B.S. No, actually, I just “hate” children (and old people). Think I’m joking? Just ask any Kool-Aid drinker. According to The Washington Post:
If the president refuses to sign the bill, if he says, with a veto, ‘I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care,’ this legislation will haunt him again and again and again,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Or how about Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen :
Anyone who votes in lock step with the president and against children’s health, they are going to hear about it back home, Van Hollen said.
For that matter, just ask any bleeding heart liberal or kowtowing neocon you can find. The response will be remarkable consistent: “You must have something against children!” Only the very dumb, the very presumptuous, or the very intellectually myopic would make such a statement. But those descriptors generally define the players in the political realm, don’t they. Or maybe, they’re just being shrewd.
(God, I hate politicians. May they “slide under the nearest gas truck and taste their own blood!”)
Here’s a common sense question: How the hell are we going to pay for this? Here’s a cold hard truth. The politicians running this scam don’t give a flip about children’s health care. They sure as hell don’t care about you. The do care about getting reelected and it certainly doesn’t hurt their chances if they pass legislation which is both popular among voters and has broad bipartisan support. Besides, with the “if you’re against this, you’re against children mentality” ruling the roost, only those who aren’t up for reelection or who have a political death wish will come out against this legislation. The irony in this situation is that in the long run it’s you and I who are quite literally paying to reelect these bozos. How much will we be paying? Try $60 billion over the next five years. That’s how much this legislation is costing us. But that’s a government projection, so you can bet your sweet ass that there will be overruns. In the end, it won’t be the children who benefit from all this, nor will it be those who have been relieved of personal responsibility, it will be those bastards the enablers put in office so they could get their pet social projects financed by the federal government.
