Why Is FamiliesUSA Putting Politics Ahead of Kids?
More Political Spin from the Left on SCHIP
By Bluey Posted in Congress — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
FamiliesUSA wants you to think President Bush hates kids in a new ad about yesterday's SCHIP veto.
I've said all along that the right's position on SCHIP would be portrayed that way. What disturbs me most about the FamiliesUSA ad is that the organization says it wants to "get something done," but isn't at all interested in a compromise. In reality, FamiliesUSA wants to impose government-run health care on America. Take, for instance, the language on its petition to Congress:
Unless you act to overturn President Bush's veto, 10 million children will lose their health coverage. Our children count on us to protect them. We expect our elected leaders to remember that. I strongly urge you to override President Bush's veto of health care for America's children.
So let's get this straight: FamiliesUSA's idea of "get[ting] something done" on SCHIP includes just one option -- overriding Bush's veto. Where's the good-faith effort to come to the table and talk about alternatives to the Democrats' plan? And, if FamiliesUSA really cares about kids, why hasn't the group engaged in the discussion of offering tax credits to families who fall between 200% and 300% of the federal poverty level?
Instead of shilling for congressional Democrats, FamiliesUSA should drop the spin and help find a solution.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Rep. Bartlett to Democrats: I Won't Switch on SCHIP — Comments (4) »
Why Is FamiliesUSA Putting Politics Ahead of Kids? 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I suspect that you were just as outraged when President Bush posed with the Snowflake Children while he was vetoing the stem-cell research funding bill? Or is playing hardball, emotion-driven politics only inappropriate when Democrats do it?
Republicans shouldn't be afraid of this issue coming back to haunt them, if anything I can see opposing these type of programs as a winning issue for Republicans in order to take back the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
Even though this legislation polls well, people vote Republican to put a brake on a lot of these welfare-type entitlements. The type of voters that want these type of programs were never going to vote Republican anyway.
No matter what Republicans do, Democrats are always going to accuse them of not caring about children. If we're going to be accused of this regardless, we might as well stop these new dangerous entitlements dead in their tracks.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
but you'll be pretty far removed from electoral reality at this point. You're right, the Dems will continue to use this as a hot poker in our rears, but for the forseeable future it's going to work, because they've out-flanked us and re-captured this as an issue. The smart thing to do is not to attack them on a ground of their choosing (as I've already said elswhere...) but to forge a compromise that blunts their melodramatic criticism and takes the issue off the table. Being right sometimes means letting the babies have their bottle and fighting them on an issue you can win. The very fact that that the liberal fronts already had commercials like this in the can, ready to roll out the next day, should tell you right off that we've been had.
The Dems seized the high ground and got out in front of this issue, while we played not to lose when we could have been pushing our own (market-based) health care ideas - we have the money and the infrastructure to prime our side with ideas they're willing to fight for, and we didn't do it. This is the (predictable) outcome - sitting in an exposed position right in the crosshairs of the opponents' big guns while they sit on the hill in a well-fortified position. Pickett's men were valiant too, but we all know what became of them.
You're mistaken about the voters this plays to. Combined with the war and the rest of Bush's shortcomings on our agenda, this has become a formidable issue with which to skim off swing voters. If you don't think we need those votes to get back in the driver's seat, you're in for an ugly surprise next November. Right now Martinez and Barton appear to be taking the initiative to negotiate a workable compromise and and get this behind us. I hope enough of our GOP reps have enough strategic sense to follow their lead.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Is there any plank of the party platform you don't consider expendable for short-term political advantage?
it's not about "short-term political gain". It's about building credibility for our issues by getting out in front of them, not waiting until the other side ambushes us by luring us into a trap. Once you've made that mistake, the best you can do is get out of that trap without chewing off your leg, which some seem determined to do. As I've said before, assuming liberals will self-destruct or overreach is generally a good bet, but I think in this case it may be whistling past the graveyard. Bush isn't running again, but some of us are, and the numbers are pretty consistent on this mess.
And for the record, I think caving to a withdrawal timetable would be foolish in both the short and long term for the GOP, and I don't think I've ever advocated such a compromise. Pretty sure most of my intra-party harping has been on the health care issue and on immigration rhetoric, anyway. And my stand on immigration in no way reflects any desire to jettison border security or better enforcement, which I assume are what most level-headed conservatives are chiefly concerned with in that area. I disagree with a number of my colleagues generally on means, not ends, strategy and not goals. I see a lot of principled conservatives standing up for conservative values and that's great and quite necessary, but lately I haven't seen the kind of planning and foresight and anticipation that we've had in the past, and it concerns me to the extent that it jeopardizes the realization of our goals.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
What foresight was there to have on this? Nobody would really be complaining had this program been renewed as-is. Sure, some of us would wish the program would just be left to die, but we wouldn't be harping too much on it.
However the Democrats have taken that option off the table. They're demanding a massive expansion. So now some of us, in return, are hoping to put them to the test and see if they'd rather just let the program die (a superior policy outcome overall) than take the compromise (acceptable, and not nearly as harmful as an expansion).
why didn't we confer on this compromise with Bush before it got to this point? Or find a quieter and clever way to kill this program or cut it or roll it into something else a long time ago - or push our own approaches to expanding health coverage and healthier competition via the market - like, when we still had the numbers? That's where the lack of foresight comes in. Now we're stuck in a crouching tiger, badly in need of a hidden dragon.
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
We tried to amend the bill, didn't we? The Democrats rejected that plan, and pushed ahead with theirs. They have the majority you know.
So now we're on to plan B. And I think it's a good plan.
What a crock of [redacted] that is.
You want to increase this POS program by $35B, fund it with tobbacco taxes that will never materialize, increase the ceiling for the program to families that make $80K to build credibilty?
And just how are you planning on ever cutting or eliminating this new entitlement? This is the poster child strategy for stupidity.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Are you talking about fiscal discipline is important only when it comes to bills proposed by Democrats?
I mean, as a Democrat, I think it is great that Republicans are choosing this fight to try and restore their fiscal discipline "cred". Farm subsidies to millionaires, check. Tax breaks to energy companies, check. No-bid contracts to military contractors, check. Bridges to nowhere, check. Expanding healthcare for children, oh my god, no way!!!
healthcare for children should be the lowest of all of those. If you want it, do it at the state level not the federal level. Or buy it yourself. Even if you have to get a second or third job.
I, being a CrustyCon (think Old Fart), don't want one nickle spent on health care for ANY child by the government, period. I don't like the bridge to nowhere, but I'd sign off on that one hell of a lot quicker than this piece of crap.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Somehow I'm imagining a horde of children milling around a convention center, half of them wearing hats with points of blue hair sticking out over each ear, and the rest saying "Hey hey!" to each other while eating pork products.
with reasonable assurance that you're not in our 'target audience' this cycle, mbecker.... ;)
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
is HK's and a couple of tactical knife manufacturers. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'll be sure not to arouse your ire again, chief ;)
Carry on...
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Dream Act and an increase in funding for NCLB and we absolutely MUST legislate a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
Did I miss anything?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What I want to know is what irresponsible congress made health care for children illegal in the first place. And did I break the law the last time I took my son in for a well-child exam?
this time I pose this for FamiliesUSA: Do you support abortion? since that practice reduces the number of children that could be covered by government health insurance, I would expect this organization to condemn the killing of unborn children.
For the children is it?
R.J.
The irony is that when all these children grow up and get a job, they will have to work a good chunk of the year just to pay taxes on the interest from the addition debt for this program. But we can feel good now because we are giving them "free" health care.
I though Families USA was a union-backed org, and it does have an SEIU member on the payroll. However, in looking at New York Times stories regarding the group, it's referred to in several different ways:
-- a Washington consumer group;
-- a health-care advocacy group;
-- a liberal advocacy group;
-- and variations on the above.
The interesting thing is that if the word "liberal" appears in the description, the reporter is always Robin Toner.
I don't read the Times often and I don't know who Robin Toner is, but good for him!
If you don't think this is interesting, I'm onto something that may be MUCH more interesting about this group. If it pans out, I'll link here to the post.
As I understand it the original proposal was for $50 to $80 million over 5 years. This was negotiated between members of both parties down to $30 million.
The President wants only $5 million which is a decrease from current program coverage in real dollars. The President veto’s the bill and complains that the Democrats are refusing to negotiate.
I thought negotiate meant to bargain in good faith and compromise where both sides give-up something.
It seams that the only compromise the president is willing to accept is complete acceptance of whatever he wants.
If you don't have the courage and integrity to post using your real identity you obviously don't deserve to be listened to or takes seriously.
The program has clearly been expanded way beyond its current mandates as a way of dealing out pork. It's a service, rather than a good, but other than that, it's no different than the bridge to nowhere or Ron Paul's shrimp fishing earmarks.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
If you two like "It seams that the only compromise" and "the Only Position He Should Except," you'll love Warner Todd Huston. He thinks that radio "station owners would just assume not have any political commentary at all."
As four me, I'm tairing my hare out.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
THAT'S MY JOB! As to the program itself, it has been demonstrated that for every 2 new people covered, 1 dropped private insurance to get it! That ain't economically smart! AND if anyone bothered to watch the President yesterday on TV, he pointed out that 5 million kids who are NOW eligible for the coverage are not applying for it!
Lets not add millions MORE until we cover those who is already eligible!
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed. Vegas does not worry about health insurance as he has a very good Vet!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I utterly loathe the campaign the left ran to get S-CHIP enacted. There was no intelligent justification for the 72% UC increase per child insured. No effort was made to justify upping the annual TC by 175%. Nothing! Just cute little pictures of kiddies who were going to get it if this wasn't passed. Am I the only one feeling almost blackmailed by this.
I have a young son myself. I insure him through work at personal cost.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA