![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunRemember the gubernatorial primary election in my home state I mentioned in this post a few days ago? Well, it was held yesterday, and not only did the Republican BushCo/fundie stooge Bobby Jindal win the open primary, he won decisively enough that a runoff election was not needed. He is the first to win an open governor's seat outright in Louisiana since the open-primary system was instituted in the 1970s, and the first Indian-American governor ever elected in any state. (Thanks to mshollie for the update.) The Times-Picayune reports on his victory here; I don't know whether to be more appalled by the story itself or some of the visitor posts underneath it.
So it falls to those of us who are liberals and Democrats to continue the fight elsewhere, and hope for victories later to follow losses today. Toward that end, let me point you all (especially those likea_phoenix_afire who insist on pushing the shibboleth that the vetoed SCHIP bill in Congress would allow kids from better-off families to ditch their private health insurance for a government program) to this op-ed by Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker, one of the paper's two resident liberal commentators (Jay Bookman being the other), which appeared in the paper today. Money quote: "One of the misconceptions about SCHIP, perpetuated by conservatives who oppose it, is that it should cover only "poor" children (as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children). Nonsense. It was never intended for the poor; impoverished children are already covered by Medicaid. SCHIP covers children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who still don't earn enough to afford private insurance." And she goes on to point out that, despite assertions from the right to the contrary, the bill was entirely reasonable in its request to increase funding, hardly a blip in a multi-trillion-dollar budget—and far lower in cost than the Medicare prescription-drug program Junior Bush championed.
And this surprising column by George Will ends up arguing against the President being given a line-item veto by claiming that liberals want him to have it (news to me; I must have missed that memo), even as he himself cites the late former Prez Ronald Reagan's campaign to gain it back in the 1980s. Credit must be given, however, for Will's statement that the current occupant of the White House must not under any circumstance be allowed even more power for himself—and his successors—than he has already grabbed. A line-item veto in the hands of any President, let alone an imperial-minded Nixon or Bush the Lesser, is a dangerous thing for the separation of powers; one of the things that makes Will one of the tiny few conservative pundits for whom I have any respect, however grudging, is that he at least has enough sense to understand this.
mshollie for the update.) The Times-Picayune reports on his victory here; I don't know whether to be more appalled by the story itself or some of the visitor posts underneath it.So it falls to those of us who are liberals and Democrats to continue the fight elsewhere, and hope for victories later to follow losses today. Toward that end, let me point you all (especially those like
a_phoenix_afire who insist on pushing the shibboleth that the vetoed SCHIP bill in Congress would allow kids from better-off families to ditch their private health insurance for a government program) to this op-ed by Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker, one of the paper's two resident liberal commentators (Jay Bookman being the other), which appeared in the paper today. Money quote: "One of the misconceptions about SCHIP, perpetuated by conservatives who oppose it, is that it should cover only "poor" children (as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children). Nonsense. It was never intended for the poor; impoverished children are already covered by Medicaid. SCHIP covers children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who still don't earn enough to afford private insurance." And she goes on to point out that, despite assertions from the right to the contrary, the bill was entirely reasonable in its request to increase funding, hardly a blip in a multi-trillion-dollar budget—and far lower in cost than the Medicare prescription-drug program Junior Bush championed.And this surprising column by George Will ends up arguing against the President being given a line-item veto by claiming that liberals want him to have it (news to me; I must have missed that memo), even as he himself cites the late former Prez Ronald Reagan's campaign to gain it back in the 1980s. Credit must be given, however, for Will's statement that the current occupant of the White House must not under any circumstance be allowed even more power for himself—and his successors—than he has already grabbed. A line-item veto in the hands of any President, let alone an imperial-minded Nixon or Bush the Lesser, is a dangerous thing for the separation of powers; one of the things that makes Will one of the tiny few conservative pundits for whom I have any respect, however grudging, is that he at least has enough sense to understand this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 11:28 pm (UTC)Wow, teh Stupid!
Date: 2007-10-22 02:08 am (UTC)The same Bush who gave it to New Orleans up the ass.
Brain dead.
A Few Points
Date: 2007-10-22 12:37 pm (UTC)b) SCHIP. As with Medicaid and welfare reform from the mid-1990s, the question becomes how to use the safety net. Conservatives and Rs that agree with the presence of a government sponsored safety net want it to be the utter last resort. As long as you have any money that can pay for medical bills or basic necessities such as food or rent, you should be ineligble for government support. Spend all your own assets first, and the government will picknup the slack only for the truly needy.
But an increasing number of Americans are unhappy with this choice. Because too many of them are loosing their entire accumulated savings -- or live so close to the edge -- that being required to pay for medical expenses puts them under. Conservatives like to argue the equities here. But as utilitarian guy, I think we're creating some extremely unfortunate economic consequences that would be better addresses by some judicious government coverage.
c) Line Item veto -- Clinton pushed for it and got it. It was declared unconstitutional. I don't like it, because I think it is part of the necessary balance of power between the Executive and the LEgislative branches.
as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children
Date: 2007-10-23 03:57 am (UTC)-...he won decisively enough that a runoff election was not needed.-
Now we just need to get Chocolate City mayor Ray (now where did I leave those darned evacuation buses? Oh crap! Now I remember.) Nagin replaced, and maybe Nawlins'll stand a real chance of recovery. ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-...It was never intended for the poor; impoverished children are already covered by Medicaid. SCHIP covers children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who still don't earn enough to afford private insurance."-
$82,000.00 a year is too poor to afford private insurance for a family of four? If that's the case then maybe it's because g'vmnt intervention and subsidization of insurance and health care companies in the form of BC/BS has twisted the Free Market System to the breaking point. BTW, the gap in coverage was only created in the last two years by changes in the MC/MA laws. Why should one piece of bad legislation be ameliorated by another piece of bad legislation?
In any case, $82,000.00 a year for a family of four is NOT to poor. How much are you living on? When I hit the $40,000.00/yr mark ten years ago with a family of five, I voluntarily dropped the state insurance, telling my wife that we should leave it for those who truly needed it. Stop whining that you're not getting your share of my money.
Re: as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children
Date: 2007-10-23 01:01 pm (UTC)Where in the Sam Hill did you get that number? I haven't heard it in any state's upper ceiling or any reporting on the proposed legislation. Most states' ceiling is well below that. And even if it weren't, what state did you live in that allowed you to support five people on $40K? Most people I know would consider that poverty-level for such a large family, given all the expenses children incur (food, clothing, medical treatment, school books/materials, transportation etc., etc., etc.).
>>Stop whining that you're not getting your share of my money.<<
I don't wan't any of your money; I have health insurance through my employer. But we should all contribute a little bit to help those who need it. You've just confirmed what I've said for years: that most conservative domestic policy boils down to "Get your damned hand out of my wallet, you commie pinko liberals!"
Re: as if ultra-conservatives cared about poor children
Date: 2007-10-24 12:01 am (UTC)That's probably 'cause you're too busy patting yourself on the back for having "got me" to actually look for the truth which is here...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1580.cfm#_ftn5
or try this one and see if you can look at more than just the first return you find that sounds a little biased. Maybe even read a few on the second page.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22schip%22+%2B%2282%2C000%22&btnG=Search
Really Matt, why must you be so snide, especially since you are otherwise so well-spoken and intelligent?
===================================================
--what state did you live in that allowed you to support five people on $40K?--
The adult state -- of mind where you don't live beyond your means. It's only poverty level if you don't spend and save wisely. I even bought a house that I made a 300% profit on when I sold it, and my wife never worked after the first year. Was it hard? You betcha. Do I think the g'vmnt should take your money and give it to me or vice versa? Nope.
=================================================
--I don't wan't any of your money; I have health insurance through my employer. --
Maybe so, but what about those who have money but a). don't share your sense of self-reliance and b). don't see any reasonable merit to passing up a free lunch. That's how g'vmnt grows so big that it takes nearly forty-five percent of your earnings in both blatant and hidden taxes. Help those who need it a little? Yes. (although private charities and churches are a far better vehicle) Give my money away to people that make more than I do in some cases? Hell no.
===================================================
--You've just confirmed what I've said for years: that most conservative domestic policy boils down to "Get your damned hand out of my wallet, you commie pinko liberals!"--
So, you can read my mind and you even know what words I'm gonna say. Thanks. I don't and wouldn't use those words, but since you have I have to suspect Freudian projection.
You should read some history books on the revolutionary time frame and what the Founding Fathers had to say on such matters. Start with the Boston Tea Party.
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance"
-Declaration of Independence-
The Dems tried to twist the intent and modus operandi of a program that has worked very well for a decade, all for their political agenda, and when the changes were unconscionable and unreasonable to the president, they tried to say HE was the one with no compassion. Nice win/win for a bunch of self-servers who don't care how much they hurt the children (that SCHIP helped handily for ten years) with their partisan bullshit. It was a bipartisan program, now it's another fricken' football.
Yeah Matt, republicans suck, and the $82,000 (that nasty shibboleth I insist on pushing) is just more hot air. BTW, are you familiar with any of the senators from NY, where (again, as you say) 400% of the poverty level can't POSSIBLY be the real ceiling? I wonder how those two things might have anything to do with each other. Hhmmmm.