Do It For The Children
October 12th, 2007 | by Craig |OK, so the failed SCHIP program was to be funded by a tax on smokers (who are disproportionately poor), yet everywhere we turn, the nanny-staters are banning smoking.
How are we going to support a new generation of children on SCHIP if we can’t get this one hooked?
It makes one’s head spin.
8 Responses to “Do It For The Children”
By Teresa on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Logic… you aren’t supposed to use logic my man! You’re supposed to “feeeeel” it.
By Mark Tokarski on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
The reason they wanted to tax smokers was that they are a loose and disorganized group that cannot put up much resistance. It was pure cowardice on their part - the best way to fund the program would have been an armaments cut of any kind (waste and fraud in the Pentagon?), or to reverse the Bush tax cuts. But Democrats don’t have the chops for that fight. Wimps.
By Rocky Smith on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
I think they should tax all guys named Mark to pay for SCHIP. -Just kidding Mark (kind of).
Many of the conservatives I know are willing to support SCHIP if it is kept to within reasonable limits. Bush would have been willing to sign a $5B increase, but that wasn’t good enough for Dems. They have to have $35B. Would it be too much to ask for a sensible compromise? I’m guessing the answer is “yes” since the Democrats seem poised to pound anyone who doesn’t bend to their will on this bill.
By DMerriman on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Here’s a thought: how about taxing fast food and snack items? Maybe that would help motivate the parents to start feeding their kids nutritious meals instead of the high-calorie and -fat stuff that contributes so much to child obesity.
Oh, wait… there’s more folks that eat that swill than there are smokers.
Nevermind.
By Mark Tokarski on Oct 13, 2007 | Reply
I don’t believe they expanded the coverage under this proposal, but merely funded what existed before. And anyway, it’s been fun to watch. DO you guys enjoy buzz saws? You seem to go looking for them. Dontcha miss Karl Rove? He could have steered you clear of this one.
By Rocky Smith on Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
I think a $35B increase is an expansion. I don’t see how you can claim otherwise.
By Mark Tokarski on Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
It’s an increase in funding, but they did not change the parameters for qualification for the program. They merely funded the existing mandate.
By the way - if you support Bush and the war, you’ve got no right to complain about $35 billion. You’ve got to be quiet about that, becuase you are obviously already a reckless spender. So complaints about cost of programs coming from you and your cohorts can be immediately discounted.
By Rocky Smith on Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
“It’s an increase in funding, but they did not change the parameters for qualification for the program. They merely funded the existing mandate.”- Mark
Are you referring to the $5b increase Bush would sign or the $35B the Democrats want? The latter is DEFINITELY an expansion of the program. To suggest otherwise is a lie. To work toward putting kids whom already have private insurance on the public dime is incrementalism toward the government run healthcare you so desire. It expands to allow young adults and families with income up to $83k/yr. Don’t try to tell people it is merely funding the existing mandate. Some of us aren’t that stupid. Republicans and the President would be happy to fund the program to fund actual poor people in need. That doesn’t go far enough toward the socialist system you obviously desire. Are you one of those people who thinks we’ll all just be getting everything for free? Take note that most free stuff is crap nobody really wants. Our current system has flaws, but socializing it isn’t the right answer.
Oh and don’t try throwing up the cost of the war as evidence that I can’t speak out against other government spending. The war on terror (which includes Iraq, whether you like it or not) protects my loved ones from harm. Their lives are important enough to me to do whatever it takes to protect them. It certainly doesn’t mean I get no voice in other government spending or the direction of our country. Nice try though.