It goes without saying that it is almost impossible for the average person to grasp all the ramifications that go into making a political decision, no matter how cut-and-dry it may seem.But as a politician, how on earth could you set yourself up in a position to have to explain this:
The House voted Tuesday to expand health insurance for children, but the Democratic-led victory may prove short-lived because the margin was too small to override President Bush's promised veto.That's right kids: President Bush (and the Republicans in Congress) voted against expanding health insurance for children because it would raise taxes on cigarettes.
Bush says he will veto the bill due to its cost, its reliance on a tobacco tax increase and its potential for replacing private insurance with government grants.
Like I said: I'm sure there is more to that decision than the neat little sound bite above (although for the life of me, I couldn't imagine what)... but in a political world that exists solely on just such sound bites, why would you get caught within a country mile of "no health insurance for children, because we don't want higher taxes for Phillip Morris"?
And President Bush — who has veteod fewer bills than any other American president in history — decides to jump in and veto this one? Good God, man, what are you thinking? It's like the Republican party has some collective suicidal ideation and are casting about left and right to find the most lethal political shotgun to aim at their heads.
UPDATE:
Oh yeah... Just to give my liberal tendencies some much-needed airing out (I do have a few, ya know): The cost of the Iraq war is coming up on $500 billion dollars, and Republicans can afford it just fine... But when it comes to providing health insurance for children at $7 billion per year, Republicans draw the line.
2 comments:
I don't think anyone thinks Bush is a bigger idiot than I do. We'd probably be better off if he'd have stuck to his failing oil businesses, but on this he's right. Let me point out some reasons why this decision doesn't necessarily express "hatred for da keeds".
1. Is it really right to target smokers to pay for children's health care? Supposedly smokers cost billions of dollars in health care, wouldn't that money be better spent on what it was promised to: Smoker's health care? Why not use raise alcohol taxes? Pornography taxes? Gasoline taxes? Why not raise something EVERYONE is paying for? Really easy to target smokers when so many don't smoke, huh? If people want this funded so badly, how come THEY aren't in a hurry to tax their own stuff, eh?
2. Is it really intelligent to base such an important program on taxes you're hoping will DECREASE? I mean really. More and more children are born every day, but supposedly, according to the sound bites, smokers are decreasing with every tax increase.
3. Phillip Morris doesn't pay higher taxes, SMOKERS DO. PM will not be funding your children's insurance, smokers will. You better hope they keep smoking. In fact, I'd go as far as to say we better thank smokers every single day for our children's health instead of treating them badly. History shows us that when funding for these types of programs decrease, funding is NOT found elsewhere. See our public schools and lack of funding for that. It was the first thing to go after all the talk of No Child Left Behind.
4. Not everyone wants a socialist government. I'm sure it's "for the children", but it's no reason to turn our health over to the government. Historically, the more power you give the government the more rights YOU lose. I'm not sure what makes this any different. When you make socialist medicine, you also invite those in charge to make decisions regarding YOUR lifestyle and habits. If you are "costing the people" too much, you will be forced to comply or refused care. Perhaps time making this type of thing might be better spent ending the price gouging of hospitals. It's the only place you pay $126 for a box of tissues.
5. This is an observation of my own, I find it amusing that people jump on Bush for "you're either with us or against us" and yet pull the same crap with "for the children". If you don't do it "for the children", then you're a child hater. If you don't support Bush's war, you're a traitor to your country. Do you people have no happy mediums??
And before the accusations get started, I'm not Republican/Democrat/Green/whatever. I support our Constitution. The one that says we're a free nation of free people, who don't stomp on the minority for the will of the majority. I believe what's best for this COUNTRY, not for just some of the people in it.
My, my... you certainly went through a lot of effort to completely miss the point of this post, didn't you?
OK... go back and slowly read the post again. Note how I say in the first paragraph that "it is almost impossible for the average person to grasp all the ramifications that go into making a political decision." Just because you are not the average person does not make that untrue.
You go on and on in detail that even The News Hour wouldn't get into, when the point of this post is that the lack of any detail out there (remember how I mentioned "sound bites"?) is why this was such a stupid vote.
My point was that no citizen of America (except you) knows anything more about this bill except that Republicans "voted against expanding health insurance for children because it would raise taxes on cigarettes."
You don't like it? Blame America. Blame uninvolved Americans. Blame news media who can't spent more than 90 seconds on a single issue, or Americans who don't have more than 90 seconds to listen.
Coming onto a blog and writing paragraph after paragraph of why the Republicans should have voted the way they did — as much as I appreciate it, and I do — doesn't make Americans who don't give a shit (the other 95% of us) any smarter.
Whether Republicans were smart or stupid to vote for a program to provide insurance for children is not the point of this post. The point is that the Republicans were utterly retarded to vote (as every uninformed American likely believes) for "no health insurance for children, because we don't want higher taxes for Phillip Morris".
Of course that is not the truth... but it is what people believe. And Republicans, who have mastered spin and message control so well over the past 15 years, certainly should know the difference.
That was what this post was about.
Post a Comment