Child-Haters

I was trying to think of something to say about George W. Bush's decision to veto S-CHIP expansion and reauthorization that would move beyond accusing him of callous lack of concern for the well-being of children, but there's not that much to say. Greg Mankiw on his blog posted a highbrow version of the case against expansion and it seems that, basically, George W. Bush hates children. Or, rather, I guess that the official Bad Aspects of this effort to help children is that the bill will, allegedly, also crowd some people out of private sector insurance.

This, though, is a good thing to do.

The bill would also raise cigarette taxes, which, again, is a good thing to do since higher cigarette taxes cause either more revenue (a good thing) or else less smoking (a good thing) or else some combination of these two good things. Even Megan McArdle who hates children enough to oppose this policy can't figure out why Bush would be so fanatically anti-child as to take big political risks on this of all subjects. It seems to me, though, that the displacing of private insurance has got to be the key issue for him, since we know from his 2003 stab at health care reform that Bush loves insurance companies.

Photo of cute child possibly doomed to substandard health care by heartless conservative policies by Flickr user Pankaj used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

In the immortal words of Mama Fratelli:

"Kids suck."

Posted by JA | October 5, 2007 11:46 AM

imagine a president making choices like this everyday; that's what Grover and Co. want from the Federal government: less of it.

the Dems should (but won't) wrap this around the neck of every "small government" conservative out there. wrap it around their necks, bind their hands with it, tie them to the anchor with it.

Posted by cleek | October 5, 2007 11:49 AM

Krugman makes a similar point today. He's actually shriller than Matt, I think.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 5, 2007 12:00 PM

Bush has got to make a living somehow, starting in 2009. I hear the Insurance Institute of America has very nice honorariums for invited speakers.

Not that the War Criminal In Chief will have a surfeit of speaking offers from those whose P/L statements have been greatly enhanced by his thuggery.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 5, 2007 12:01 PM

"It seems to me, though, that the displacing of private insurance has got to be the key issue for him, since we know from his 2003 stab at health care reform that Bush loves insurance companies."

Bush's position is actually more pathological than that. "America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the measure yesterday, undercutting Bush's contention that the bill is a step away from private insurance and toward government-run health care."

Doesn't clear up what it's all about, but it's not just about defending insurance companies.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | October 5, 2007 12:03 PM

If you stare at that photo of the kid and sort of cross your eyes, it becomes three-dimensional and he jumps out of the monitor.

Posted by Gabriel | October 5, 2007 12:11 PM

James Dobson et al certainly must hate Bush. They said they won't support any candidate that doesn't believe in the sanctity of life. I'll bet they're stewing now! Ha ha! Bush will be in biiiig trouble with cultural conservatives because of this!

Posted by MikeJ | October 5, 2007 12:14 PM

It's about denying the Democrats a policy success on such a large issue on his watch.

Posted by Karmakin | October 5, 2007 12:29 PM

Ah, now this is the sort of post that I come to matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com for!

Too bad about the kids, though...

Posted by Dan | October 5, 2007 12:35 PM

The five-year cost of the SCHIP expansion is about half of what the Bush income tax cuts give annually to only those households earning $1 million or more.

Posted by mq | October 5, 2007 12:37 PM

When the administration goes from cynically pushing a policy they don't care about to create a wedge issue against the democrats, they're very successful (Medicare D, NCLB). When they're so ideologically caught up in something that they support an idea because they actually believe in it, they end up running off a cliff, despite whatever "outs" they might get from relevant interest groups (eg, Social Security and S-CHIP).

Posted by Tyro | October 5, 2007 12:38 PM

Hard to believe Al or Fred hasn't shown up yet to push the bogus $83,000 talking point.

That said, I wonder if one reason Democrats never get as much mileage out of these issues as they should is that they're instinctively gunshy about leveling the sort of over-the-top accusations that Republicans love. Just call them on it. They care more about ideology than they do about helping kids. This sort of argument shouldn't be found only within the shrill confines of the blogosphere.

Posted by Steve | October 5, 2007 12:42 PM

I never understood what children were for. The negatives vastly outweigh the positives. They're costly, snatching away discretionary income. They consume your time, robbing you of the clock. They make noise, disturbing your peace. Parent say you can have fun with them. Doing what? Swimming? A visit to the park? Dining out? These are things you can do with a friend and when you're done at least you can screw the friend. You can't do that with your kids (OK, you people in Kentucky are exempted on that one). You can get drunk with friends. Visit a den if iniquity and ill repute. Gamble. Smoke. Cuss. Watch porn. Having kids has to be one of the stupident goddamned personal decisions you can make. Talk about a diminished quality of life. I mean look, it's caused an argument with George Bush. That alone has to be one of the biggest wastes of time on the planet. DON'T HAVE KIDS! Run away! Put down the penis, or at least find a raincoat first! And no, perpetuating the species isn't a reason to have them. Dumb reason, dumb species. We need to go at least 2-3 generations practicing a regimen of strict birth control. The few careless fucks slipping through the cracks will still squirt out a few of the bothersome little curtain climbers and we can start all over on another 6 billion mouth breathers.

Posted by steve duncan | October 5, 2007 12:45 PM

While I agree with the post and find it utterly preposterous to deny health insurance to children (who, by the way, are one of the cheapest demographics to insure), raising taxes on cigs is not always the best solution. This is because it ironically ends up being a tax on the poor, who disproportionately smoke more.

Posted by Ryan | October 5, 2007 12:52 PM

I'm not sure it's wise to attribute any domestic policy viewpoints to President Bush himself. The question to ask yourself is why are his advisers opposing the S-CHIP expansion so vigorously. Obviously a lot of it is just payback to the health insurance companies that fund their campaigns, but I suspect there's also some part that is an attempt to lay the groundwork for opposing comprehensive health reform should a Democratic Congress and Democratic President try to enact it in the coming years. Then too it's pretty clear that these people really are the assholes they appear to be and they really do believe in the Marie Antoinette health care plan: if they don't have insurance, let them go the emergency room.

Posted by Ron | October 5, 2007 12:54 PM

Is this the same Matt Yglesias who was so upset someone had the audacity to callhim a "leftist?"

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/tomasky_v_cohen.php

And now he turns around and calls his political opponents "child haters."

Posted by Dave | October 5, 2007 1:01 PM

This is because it ironically ends up being a tax on the poor, who disproportionately smoke more.

A "tax," one might note, that is 100% avoidable. Just don't smoke.

Posted by Glenn | October 5, 2007 1:05 PM

It's like the cartoon - better sick than socialist.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | October 5, 2007 1:06 PM

The fact that the cigarette tax is avoidable means it's a terrible way to finance something like S-CHIP. The higher the tax goes, the fewer people smoke (or, maybe it's unrelated to the tax, since smoking rates are down anyway), and then there's no longer enough money for the program. Cigarette taxes should pay for the societal costs of smoking. Then, if fewer people smoke and the revenue goes down, its OK, because the need goes down too.

Posted by too many steves | October 5, 2007 1:20 PM

Mark Kleiman would disagree. (He's very much in favor of S-CHIP, but not of funding it via cigarette taxes.)

Posted by SamChevre | October 5, 2007 1:23 PM

I think this is also the same Matthew Yglesias who said that it was conservatives who make emotional arguments. Yes, Bush wants children to die. There is no other explanation. To me it seems that Matt favors taxing the poor to subsidize the health of the middle class.

Posted by Homer | October 5, 2007 1:23 PM

We should increase the cigarett tax and use the money to pay for everything. The war, Social Security, Medicare, FBI, weather service, NASA, and more!

Less smoking is a good thing because smokers are bad people and we don't want bad people in our lives.

Posted by Quiddity | October 5, 2007 1:25 PM

His political opponents don't hate children; rather they're indifferent to them, or more accurately, profit matters more. Strictly from the point of view of maintaining a profit-oriented 'health care' system, they are right to dig in their heels against any manifestation of policy that puts people first.

Well, when you make a religion out of Capitalism, this is what you have to expect. Nobody should be surprised.

In the predominant US ideology, if a good thing does not flow from greed, it is by definition not a good thing.

Posted by RLaing | October 5, 2007 1:38 PM

A helpful link for Dave:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm

Posted by Captain Obvious | October 5, 2007 1:41 PM

Much stranger is the support for the veto by the GOP Fab Four. This seems like a perfect opportunity for them to separate themselves from Bush while aligning themselves with the public, including rank and file Republicans, who generally oppose child-hating. It's like immigration, except it would actually be helpful to them in the general election, as well.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | October 5, 2007 1:46 PM

The fact that the cigarette tax is avoidable means it's a terrible way to finance something like S-CHIP. The higher the tax goes, the fewer people smoke...

You're in good company. Trent Lott was on TV yesterday (Jon Stewart showed the clip on The Daily Show) making the exact same argument.

The obvious response is that it's highly unlikely that any decrease in cigarette revenues as a result of the higher tax will occur rapidly enough to impact the funding of S-CHIP in the near future.

Posted by James Gary | October 5, 2007 2:13 PM

It would, indeed, be more responsible to fund the program with a small increase in the income tax. But the Republicans would demagogue that so relentlessly that there's little choice but to resort to gimmicks like the cigarette tax. Oh well, they rode the wave of this anti-tax hysteria, they have to deal with the consequences.

Posted by Steve | October 5, 2007 2:16 PM

To try to answer Matt's actual question, from some reports it seems to be an attempt to make the congress negotiate for support of his health insurance tax deduction plan, which of course overwhelmingly helps the better off.

Psychologically, I think it has to be some sort of effort to reassure himself of his own power.

Posted by AJ | October 5, 2007 2:25 PM

George Bush hates black people and children.

Posted by Flavor Flavius Julianus | October 5, 2007 3:42 PM

The bill would also raise cigarette taxes, which, again, is a good thing to do since higher cigarette taxes cause either more revenue (a good thing) or else less smoking (a good thing) or else some combination of these two good things.

Pretty wrong on several levels.

1. It is wrong to tax only a certain class of people to pay for a broad societal need, especially when they are regressive taxes that hit the poor hardest.
2. Government spenders always try and target the looked down on, to transfer their money to others. Which makes those people feel singled out and less committed to society. When a nearby city introduced a commuter tax because it was easy because commuters don't vote, and people said so, commuters retaliated by boycotting restaurants in the city and by working with employers to relocate outside the city.
3. It ignores displacement costs - smokers hit with a 1 dollar increase in cigarettes in New York began using Muslim gangs that smuggled cigarettes in from Kentucky. Others just said they'd pay the costs that went into shit like midnight basketball - simply by lowering their contributions to charity.
4.Matt and others that seek to target "the things bad people and people without votes do" neglect basic price and demand laws. At a certain point, price becomes too high, net revenue plummets, people seek substitute products. Raising the taxes on beer and wine 2 bucks a bottle may sound great, and claiming smokers and drinkers are bad or impure people that deserve to pay for their sins makes a lot of self-righteous people feel good - but just drives a situation of substituting cheaper illegal drugs, black market goods. You would think that morons that have read about prohibition or were priced out a market for one good seeking and finding something people can put no tax on would be clear to these nanny nazis....

Posted by Chris Ford | October 5, 2007 3:48 PM

Shorter Bush:
Better dead then Red!

Posted by Dan | October 5, 2007 3:53 PM

This is such pathetic populist drivel. Expanding SCHIP coverage into the middle class is yet another sop to the middle class. Why is it a good thing? Our budget is in ruins not just because of the war but because we subsidize or give so much to the middle class and rich.

I'm really baffled by Matt. Sometimes he's great, sometimes he might as well be one of the children throwing tantruns on dailykos.com.

Posted by Chris | October 5, 2007 4:22 PM

I was trying to think of something to say about your hackneyed post that moves beyond accusing you of callous Democrat propaganda, but all I can come up with is: You are a liar.

Bush wants to EXPAND the SCHIP program FOR POOR CHILDREN. He doesn't want to expand it — as your party does — for 25-year-olds still living with mom and dad. The bill Bush vetoed would have made 71% of America's children eligible for the SCHIP program. He doesn't want the federal government to use MY MONEY to buy votes for YOUR PARTY by putting a ton of people on the public dole who don't need to be there. Of course you know this. So, you are a liar.

Posted by DKM | October 5, 2007 4:23 PM

The fact that the cigarette tax is avoidable means it's a terrible way to finance something like S-CHIP. The higher the tax goes, the fewer people smoke...

You're in good company. Trent Lott was on TV yesterday (Jon Stewart showed the clip on The Daily Show) making the exact same argument.

Hang on a second. I admit I haven't read the bill, so correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the SCHIP expansion isn't tied to cigarette tax revenue. The two are in the same bill because the Dems re-instated PAYGO and thus need a revenue offset for the new spending. But that doesn't mean that if cigarette use, and thus cigarette taxes, go down, then SCHIP will be cut back. All it will mean (if that were to happen, which I agree is unlikely) is that the SCHIP expansion will ultimately not be budget-neutral.

Posted by Glenn | October 5, 2007 4:44 PM

italics tag f/u...the second paragraph in my above comments was also a quote.

Posted by Glenn | October 5, 2007 4:45 PM

The states decide eligibility for S-CHIP, not the feds.

Having health insurance is hardly "being on the public dole."

Chris Ford, you simply ignore the research pinpointing how many people will quit smoking for each cent increase in taxes. They don't find gangs dealing cigarettes, which are available to very, very few people.

Posted by bob | October 5, 2007 4:47 PM

It's not that Bush actively hates poor children. He just doesn't give a shit about them. Big difference.

Posted by Gus | October 5, 2007 4:52 PM

Re-the cigarette tax issue: Virtually every state has discovered that Americans actually don't mind paying taxes. That is why we have lotteries. Voluntary taxes. Here in FLA we are assured that 'when you play, we all win.'

Re-the ethics of subsidized health insurance. I admit that the self-sufficient and sturdily independent American of myth would tell us to budget carefully and buy for ourselves what we truely need. That to do otherwise is a moral failing.

I have paid my family's health insurance at times; it cost roughly what the lease payments on a really nice car would be.

Cool. Let's take that to the voters. You explain how good they'll feel being staunch, independent, liberty loving Americans. We explain that universal health coverage is good for them and good for the rest of us. Good Bye, right-wing.

Posted by JohnMcC | October 5, 2007 5:08 PM

President Bush vetoed this bill precisely because he does love children. It's just that it's tough love. He doesn't want children to be unprepared for when they become adults and discover that not everybody gets health insurance. He doesn't want them to be weak and unable to fend for themselves. Those children who survive will thank the President for the lessons he taught them if they become adults.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/08/bush-to-kids-grow-up.html

Posted by Jon Swift | October 5, 2007 7:28 PM