George Bush: Yes To Tax Cuts; No To Poor Children genre: Econ-Recon & Little Red Ribbon-Hood & Polispeak
During the President's press conference this morning, he accused Democrats of "putting poor children at risk" in order to score political points. Unfortunately, the accusation is absurd since the Democrats intend to submit legislation to expand health care to more children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program.
In reality, the Democratic proposal is to expand SCHIP by $35 billion dollars and the President is threatening to veto the legislation...arguing that the expansion of the program "is a step toward federalization of health care". The President believes the proposal would allow states to offer health benefits to families which already have private insurance. Lacking in his analysis is any recognition that the added funds will provide needed health care to many children who lack coverage.
Apparently the President believes some children who lack health insurance aren't poor enough to warrant coverage. I guess trying to provide health insurance to more Americans makes the actions of the Democrats a political stunt. Conversely, wouldn't a presidential veto suggest the same of George Bush?
Further, if SCHIP's goal is to help those in need, then the actions of the Democrats is in keeping with the intent of the legislation...and the President's actions are in keeping with his propensity for drawing arbitrary distinctions out of thin air. In this particular case, the President ought to admit that his own political ideology trumps his assertions of compassion.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is set to expire Sept. 30. Democrats are pushing for a $35 billion spending increase for SCHIP, and Bush has threatened to veto it. He has proposed a $5 billion increase.
SCHIP is a state-federal partnership designed to provide health coverage to families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. More than 6 million people, primarily children, participate.
"The president hides behind the word 'federalization' because his political base opposes doing what is decent and humane," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "The Senate and the House both approved legislation that would extend health care coverage for poor kids, not cut it back."
"Instead of expanding SCHIP beyond its original purpose, we should return it to its original focus, and that is helping poor children, those who are most in need," Bush said. "And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in favor of government plans, we should work to make basic private health insurance affordable and accessible for all Americans."
The problem with the above statement by the President is that insurance isn't becoming more affordable and he would be hard pressed to identify any tangible measures in place to do so. As such, more families are unable to purchase health insurance and the trend will continue as long as health care costs outpace increases in income. Further, those on the lower end of the income scale typically see their income levels rise far slower than all others...leaving them all the more vulnerable.
Lastly, I find it rather disingenuous for this President to lecture us on compassion when he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in recent history...tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited those at the top of the income scale. If he's actually committed to helping those in need, why not reduce the tax cuts in order to expand the SCHIP funding. I guess compassion for this president comes to a sudden halt when it requires those who have to give to those who have not.
Tagged as: George W. Bush, Health Care, Health Insurance, Poverty, SCHIP, Tax Cuts
Daniel DiRito | September 20, 2007 | 11:06 AM
Comments
1 On September 21, 2007 at 10:10 PM, TAO wrote —
> Lastly, I find it rather disingenuous for this President to lecture
> us on compassion when he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in
> recent history…tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited those at the
> top of the income scale. If he’s actually committed to helping those
> in need, why not reduce the tax cuts in order to expand the SCHIP
> funding. I guess compassion for this president comes to a sudden halt
> when it requires those who have to give to those who have not.
Let’s tear this one down.
The highest income ranges in the country (I think the top 5%?) carries
50% of the entire country’s tax burden. Now, if we had truly fair
taxation, perhaps say everyone paid 30% of their income into the tax
system and got zero of that 30% back in April, a rich person getting
$100,000 per year would pay $30,000 of that in taxes, while a poor
person making $10,000 per year would pay $3,000 of that in taxes.
THAT is an EQUAL and FAIR TAX BURDEN, because it does not discriminate
against either high- OR low-income persons. The system now is quite
disproportionate, where if you make $10,000 per year you might pay
$300 in non-refundable SS/Medicare taxes and get the rest back–and
even perhaps get that bogus EITC back as well. Who will pay your
remaining $2,700 share of the taxes? Some guy who makes $100,000 per
year has to help pay it. You want to talk about fair taxation?
There’s your fair taxation.
Now how about the effect on the economy? Ever heard the saying “I
never got a job from a poor man?" It gets sneered at a lot by those
in favor of governmental redistribution of wealth (to themselves
preferably), but it’s true as hell. That guy who gets $100,000 per
year might be the CEO of the company that makes it possible for you to
get that $10,000 per year job at all, and you want to shoot him in the
foot? You know what happens when taxes on rich people and businesses
go up? Those rich people and businesses don’t take that tax hit like
you think they do! THE TAXES BEING TAKEN OUT OF ANY BUSINESS OR
HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS OFFICIAL ARE ROLLED INTO THE COST OF THE PRODUCTS
OR CUT OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYROLL THROUGH LAYOFFS OR PAY CUTS. Ever
been laid off? Thank your desire to tax the rich. Tax cuts cause the
economy to grow, which (almost ironically) increases tax revenue
because of the economical boost. If a $1M nationwide tax cut causes
the economy to grow 5% (and thus tax revenue growing 5%), I’m sure 5%
of the total taxation on America is FAR more than $1M. It’s simple
economics, which most “wealth envy" and “big business is bad" types
have not had explained properly to them, which is how these things
breed in the first place.
The $1M tax increase costs both you AND the government a LOT more than
$1M, and the often unmentioned side of these whining complaints about
how the government should be “Robin Hood" and steal from the rich to
give to the poor is the nasty fact that a $1M tax boost could cause
the recipient of $500 worth of the resultant redistributed wealth to
lose that $10,000 per year job (or get a big pay cut, or lose
insurance or retirement benefit programs) due to the company’s sudden
inability to pay the entire workforce what they are being paid currently.
No, I’m not a damned Republican whatsoever. I’m just a speaker of the
truth, however much YOU don’t want to hear it.
The Angry Offender
Trackback Pings
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference George Bush: Yes To Tax Cuts; No To Poor Children:
» George Bush: Yes To Tax Cuts; No To Poor Children from www.buzzflash.net
I find it rather disingenuous for this President to lecture us on compassion when he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in recent history…tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited those at the top of the income scale. If he’s actually committed to helpin... [Read More]
Tracked on September 20, 2007 1:06 PM
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment