OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush policy pays no heed to polls
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
- Critics ignore Kumar's progressive strides (November 26, 2007)
- Islam no defense for extremist action (November 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Evangelicals hold unprecedented influence over Bush White House (October 3, 2005)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
- Patriot Act wastes government resources (February 21, 2006)
- Democrats wimp out, change little (October 10, 2007)
- Access to paper trail a must (September 18, 2006)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
President Bush's White House is a rogue administration.
Unlike President Nixon during Watergate or President Reagan during Iran-Contra, Mr. Bush's extreme unpopularity cannot be attributed to a scandal. Rather, the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of him because of what he does — not who he is. Even as the most fanatical Republican loyalists begin to question the policies of the Bush regime, the White House continues to give the finger to the American people and defend wildly unpopular policies. This scene is truly something unique in modern American history.
Let's first consider the current legislation regarding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP is a national program that provides health care for families, mostly children, too poor to afford coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The bill, recently vetoed by the president, would greatly expand the program by making 4 million more children eligible for state coverage, according to The New York Times. The cost would be $35 billion over 5 years.
House Democrats are desperately trying to win over 15 more Republicans needed to override the veto as they already have the votes in the Senate. Their efforts may be in vain. According to an Oct. 3 Associated Press report, Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is "absolutely confident" that the House will be able to uphold the veto.
You wouldn't think that doling out a few extra dollars to get health care for poor kids would be controversial. Outside of Washington, it isn't. According to a recent Washington Post poll, more than 7 in 10 Americans support the proposed SCHIP expansion. For Republicans like Rep. Blunt and President Bush, government health care is good enough for their kids — family members of the executive and legislative branches and their staffs receive state coverage — but not for the country's poor.
And then, of course, there is the war. While the White House is determined to "stay the course," the American people have, for some time now, consistently expressed a desire to get the hell out of Iraq. Mr. Bush's response to the public's opposition to his Iraq policy has been the farcical troop surge and a recent request for $190 billion for the war effort — more than enough to fund 5 SCHIP expansions.
The same Washington Post poll reveals that only 27 percent of Americans support fully funding the president's requested billions, and more than two-thirds disapprove of the current handling of Iraq.
How about global warming? While 80 percent, according to a March 2006 Time Magazine poll, believe that climate change is either partially or fully caused by human activity, Mr. Bush has yet to acknowledge either the consensus opinion of the scientific community or the American people. He refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even as almost 7 in ten want the federal government to do more to combat the threat.
Mr. Bush's social conservatism is also opposed to the views of Americans. According to an August 2005 poll done by the Pew Research Center, 78 percent favor giving students information about birth control. The White House supports abstinence-only education. A June 2006 ABC poll shows that, unlike our righteous president, only 42 percent support an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage.
The president has even attacked Social Security — the last vestige of the New Deal. The government-controlled program is strongly supported by most Americans, especially seniors and the poor. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bush's hopes for a partial privatization of the system were met with strong and active opposition. A March 2005 Washington Post poll reveals that only 35 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the issue.
I could go on. From the president's frighteningly aggressive position on Iran to his support for free trade agreements to his wiretapping program, his policies have increasingly been met with outrage from the American people.
What is it that motivates the White House to continue on with its fanatical agenda? There seems to be something more than the usual subservience to corporate interests: The continued commitment to a moral crusade that everyone but the administration recognizes as immoral appears to be the cause of its particular mode of extremism.
The Bush regime is on a mission — that much is clear. Perhaps the one comforting notion is that it won't be around for too much longer.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in history and Spanish.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 7:39am):
I say we just keep giving Bush all the money he wants. It's like the old "trickle down" economics, except this time the wealth passes through Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, and Kuwait first.
Now, we sit and wait for the wealth to "trickle back." I can't wait to taste my share of the trillion dollar foreign aid donation...er, I mean, War on Terror.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 9:21am):
Democrats say that we shouldn't worry about the cost of their bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. They say that we will spend less on S-CHIP all year than we spend on Iraq in one month. That's true, in the short run. But the Iraq War will one day end. A new entitlement won't. Instead, it will grow and grow.
Future fiscal crises are built into the design of S-CHIP. It is funded through cigarette taxes, and will be underfunded to the extent that those taxes succeed in discouraging smoking. But that's the least of the program's flaws. Under the Democrats' bill, states will be able to expand benefits and stick the federal government with two-thirds of the tab. The Medicaid program shows us how these incentives will work. Benefits will expand. When times are good, governors and state legislators will be able to offer voters $3 in services for every $1 in state taxes. When times are bad, the politicians will suddenly discover that they have to cut services by $3 for every $1 in savings.
Rich blue states will spend the most, and thus get the most federal dollars. Half of all Medicaid spending goes to nine states. Republican congressmen who voted for the S-CHIP bill are voting to transfer money from red states to blue ones.
They're also voting for high marginal tax rates on the poor. S-CHIP, in combination with other federal programs, creates a poverty trap: Many people will find that, if they get ahead, their benefits will fall and they'll be left behind where they started.
Expanding S-CHIP will get coverage to some children who would not otherwise have had it. Although there is little evidence that this is a cost-effective way to improve children's health, presumably some of these kids will be able to have better preventive care. Other kids, however, will lose their private insurance and end up with worse coverage.
Insurance is unaffordable in some of the states that most want to see S-CHIP expanded. But that's the result of those states' own regulations. New Jersey's insurance prices are higher than Pennsylvania's not because of act of God, but because of acts of the New Jersey legislature.
Congressional Republicans--and especially the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee--should have tried to reduce the regulatory obstacles to buying affordable health insurance. They should have pushed to let consumers buy insurance from out of state, thus bypassing the types of regulations that New Jersey has enacted. Or they could have forced Democrats to end the tax penalty on individually purchased insurance if they wanted any S-CHIP expansion at all.
The leading Republican on the committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, instead capitulated. He said that, while he supports free-market reforms, it is unrealistic to expect this Congress to approve them. It is a pathetic excuse: He should have told his Democratic colleagues that it is unrealistic to expect a Republican president to sign such a liberal bill.
President Bush vetoed the S-CHIP bill proudly.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 9:23am):
And when these Marxist socialized medicine schemes succeed in taxing America into economic collapse, who'll put bread on the table for the newly impoverished and unemployed millions that hate-America Leftists create? What about the children of middle class Americans who'll bear the burden of the confiscatory taxation these new welfare program's compel? Will Canadians open their borders to a flood of newly impoverished and uninsured American immigrants?
Hundreds of millions of innocents have already been sacrificed on the altar of these distopian Marxist experiments over the past century. Why do Leftists keep dreaming up new nightmares?
Get a job, hippie.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 9:29am):
Bad as Bush's approval ratings are, aren't they twice as high as those of the Democrat controlled Congress?
PS."too poor to afford coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid." = not too poor to afford things I can't and just decide to spend their money on other things. Those not forced to take health insurance as part of their pay can make this choice. We should force everybody to buy health insurnace just like you must buy auto insurance. Many people would choose to drive un-insured if their was no law.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 9:30am):
Nice shotgun approach to an opinion piece. Next time pick a topic rather than splattering the audience with your Bush-hating incontinence.
Speaking of polls, it's pretty clear your ass is still smarting from the audience pounding it took after your enemy propaganda attack on the troops last week. Exactly when can the American soldier expect the apology you owe them, traitor boy?
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 12:43pm):
"President Bush vetoed the S-CHIP bill proudly."
Yeah, behind a closed door.
"Bad as Bush's approval ratings are, aren't they twice as high as those of the Democrat controlled Congress?"
Congressional approval ratings are always lower than the presidents. In fact, Congress' approval rarely gets above 40 percent.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 1:15pm):
9:21 The Iraq war MIGHT end one day, but the wounded veterans will be around for quite a while... maybe we should end the VA entitlement too.
Anonymous (October 9, 2007 @ 2:34pm):
The real solution to the medical situation will require that all the congress critters and government employees be covered by EXACTLY the same plan as all the common folks.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
