DENY THE CHILDREN WELL! Bush philosophizes about health care—and we recall the history: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2007
DENY THE CHILDREN WELL: Uh-oh! It looks like being compared to Tolstoy has gone to President Bushs head! In this mornings Washington Post, Christopher Lee reports the blowback; Bush has said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate plan to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Or, as Lee puts it in his opening sentence: Bush rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children.
The SCHIP program is ten years old. At present, it provides insurance to 6.6 million low-income children. The program expires on September 30. Just to summarize Lees reporting, here are some basic facts:
Recent cost of the program: Over the past five years, the federal government has spent $25 billion on the SCHIP program.Its that senate proposal which Bush has rejected on philosophical grounds. (For the philosophical reasoning involved, see Lees full report.) For the record, the senate plan is authored by one Democrat and two Republicans. Max Baucus is the Dem; Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch are the Reps.
This morning, we thought it might be worth recalling Bushs history with the SCHIP program.
Back in April 1999, Lou Dubose penned a detailed report in The Nation on Bush, the GOPs emerging presidential front-runner. And sure enough! In his own state of Texas, Bush had grappled with the (new) SCHIP program. Dubose spelled it out in this passage:
DUBOSE (4/26/99): While Bush and his staff were pushing the oil-and-gas tax bill through the legislature, they were also fighting to hold the line on health insurance for children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase private health insurance. There are 1.4 million children in Texas who have no health insurance. If eligibility were set at 200 percent of the federal poverty level, more than 500,000 of them would qualify to purchase low-cost insurance policies. Bush insisted, however, that the line be set at 150 percent, eliminating 200,000 children in a state second to California in the number of uninsured children and second to Arizona in the percentage of uninsured children. It shouldnt even be a fight, said Austin Democratic Representative Glen Maxey, adding that Republican governors in Michigan, California, Florida and New Jersey all agreed to their states' participation in the program. "Christine Whitman is even going to 300 percent," he noted.The federal government was paying three-fourths of the cost of the new SCHIP program—but Bush had fought to restrict its use. More specifically, he fought the Texas legislature and won, thereby eliminating 200,000 children [from the program] in a state...second to Arizona in the percentage of uninsured children.
Bushs philosophical feelings already seemed to be running strong. But so what? As we noted, Duboses detailed report appeared in April 1999. Two months later, Bush kicked off his White House campaign, dubbing himself a compassionate conservative and a different kind of Republican. And the press corps went into a script-reading frenzy. Even major liberal columnists affirmed the governors pleasing slogans—and paid little attention to the actual actions he had authored in his home state.
The most laughable swooning occurred on Brian Williams eponymous MSNBC program. (For one tragicomic example, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/17/99). But this morning, Bushs history with the SCHIP program is missing from Lees otherwise informative report. We dont know how much attention this matter will receive in the weeks ahead. But Bush, a deeply philosophical man, has pondered these matters before.
SEMANTICS ALERT: And yes, youre right—it could happen! Bush wants to spend $30 billion—on a program it will cost $39 billion to maintain. This could raise a philosophical question: Is Bush proposing a cut in the program? Or is he just slowing the rate at which the program will grow? He would, after all, spend a bit more in the next five years than weve spent in the past five-year period.
What a conundrum! But lets pray that this question doesnt arise if the SCHIP proposals get debated at all. From 1994 through 1996, the GOP pimped this imponderable concerning the growth of the Medicare program. And the press corps never did figure it out (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/20/99). This time, lets hope were all spared. Lets hope that they dont even go there.
THE CASE OF THE PATAGONIAN TOOTHFISH: All week, weve been on a trivia tour (links below); tomorrow, that tour will come to an end. But in the meantime, read this piece from Digby and recall the key, basic point. Increasingly, our political discourse is made up of trivia—trivia without any end.
Before you go read it, remember the framework: Journalists seize some point of trivia; bungle the facts; then deliver a sweeping judgment about character. In this case, its ABCs Jake Tapper, denouncing Al Gore. Because of the menu at his daughters rehearsal dinner. The rehearsal dinner staged by the in-laws.
Ferchrists sake, Digby writes. I can't believe we have to deal with this nonsense. But were going to have to deal with this nonsense until we find a way to stop it—until we develop a straightforward code and promote it so well that the average citizen instinctively sees right through this garbage. So go ahead! Go watch as Digby is forced to waste her time explaining the facts of the Chilean sea bass. But high-flying pundits will peddle this crap until we find ways to make them stop. Tomorrow, as we finish our trivia tour, well offer a brisk code of conduct.
Meanwhile, why not review each day of our tour? So far, heres the itinerary:
Day 1: Foser knows trivia—but then, so does Mik. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/16/07.Tomorrow: How to react?
THIS IS TRUE: An excellent comment responds to Digbys plaint: "I can't believe we have to deal with this nonsense."
COMMENTER: i can.The evidence supports this view—although they do care about their careers and their salaries. But this all leads to a basic question: How do we deal with their trivia?