George Bush Doesn't Care About Poor Children

Brendan Nyhan has the goods:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has issued a must-read analysis of the SCHIP debate that reveals the emptiness of White House claims that we should put "poor kids first." As it turns out, the SCHIP bill is structured to do just that, and the Bush administration's policies are not (shocking!).

One has to keep in mind the broader picture here, too. The right's main tactic whenever Democrats want to do something that might be helpful to any group of citizens everywhere is to identify some even more desperately poor group and claim that their opposition to helping out is driven by a die-hard commitment to these truly needy types. Try to help the working class, and the underclass are trotted out for moral blackmail. Try to help the middle class, and what about the poor? But then when push comes to shove, these are the same people trying to cut section eight housing programs, trying to cut food stamps, etc. The only people they're really serious about helping are the extremely wealthy beneficiaries of their tax cuts.

Photo by Flickr user lipsss used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

That child is clean and has new-looking jeans. And embroidery and jewelry and stuff! She can't really be poor! You leftists need to do a better job of vetting your poster children!

Posted by Invigilator | October 19, 2007 11:18 AM

And if she's hungry, all she has to do is turn around. There's plenty of grass and dirt behind her. Bon appetit!

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 19, 2007 11:38 AM

My main problem with the bill is how it is funded. Paying for insurance for people with incomes of triple the poverty line by a cigarette tax seems very regressive when 50% of smokers are below the poverty line.

Posted by Dave | October 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Matt left something out. Try to help the underclass, and immediately the Republicans are shocked, SHOCKED, by their moral failings. "Gee, the only effective way to help them is to send a faith-based chastity instructor...."

Posted by AnneE | October 19, 2007 12:01 PM

My question is this: where are the Republican Presidential nominees on SCHIP (and why don't we know)? Maybe I've just missed it, but I don't think the press (or the Dems for that matter) have forced Romney et al to publicly defy the President or pay the electoral price of backing his veto. As many people have pointed out, it's an unusual situation to have a neither the President nor the VP planning to run for elective office again and this certainly accounts for some (but by no means all) of the Administration's willingness to engage in such stupid, highly unpopular behavior. But that doesn't mean the current crop of candidates all deserve a pass -- let's get them to denounce SCHIP, or if they're not that dunb, at least have them publicly condemn both the Pres. and those in Congress who refused to override.

Posted by King | October 19, 2007 12:05 PM

But Matt, I thought they were serious about helping the even-less-fortunate, just like the way they wanted to help Afghan women overcome religious/sexist persecution at the hands of the Taliban, and the way they've attacked Iran for its persecution of gays.

Isn't that why we're engaging in such precise, targeted, and effective foreign policy?

Posted by Chris | October 19, 2007 1:10 PM

I guess we can add poor children to the list of Americans George Bush doesn't care about.

What will McMegan say?

Posted by bob | October 19, 2007 2:20 PM

MattY says: whenever Democrats want to do something that might be helpful to any group of citizens.

MattY has, of course, yet again revealed his ignorance. Can anyone else figure out where MattY went wrong with that statement? Will MattY ever stop acting like a used car salesman and discuss both the benefits and the downsides of what he proposes?

Posted by TLB | October 19, 2007 2:42 PM

Oops! My bad: right after pressing "Post" I realized my error in not being Clintonian enough in my parsing of MattY's sentence: when he says "citizens" I thought he meant "U.S. citizens". I'll remember to Clintonianize MattY's future statements.

Posted by TLB | October 19, 2007 2:44 PM

Poor Dave. Up at nights fretting that the poor won't be able to afford their cigarettes. I am certain that his concern for underprivileged nicotine addicts is quite genuine, and I wonder if he has contacted his congressman to encourage him to do something about the problem. Tobacco stamps? Cigarette vouchers? No, too much big government interference there. Maybe Dave should start a charity to collect unwanted cigarettes to distribute amongst the needy.

And TLB, your one note "used car salesman" troll has really grown dull.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 19, 2007 5:26 PM

The right's main tactic ... is to identify some even more desperately poor group...

Minor quibble w/ your phrasing: not necessarily more desperate, just plausibly in need. Rightists not usually effusive in their concern for poor Americans suddenly turn into their tribunes when poor Mexican immigrants come up, but the former are arguably no more desperate than the latter. (Put aside the uncertainty of the alleged evidence of a conflict of interests.) It's just that we're stuck with poor citizens (but revoke birthright citizenship now!)), so they're temporarily promoted to adjunct membership in the moral community, the better to exclude the people we're (they hope) not stuck with.

Posted by K | October 19, 2007 6:00 PM

The right's main tactic ... is to identify some even more desperately poor group...

Minor quibble w/ your phrasing: not necessarily more desperate, just plausibly in need. Rightists not usually effusive in their concern for poor Americans suddenly turn into their tribunes when poor Mexican immigrants come up, but the former are arguably no more desperate than the latter. (Put aside the uncertainty of the alleged evidence of a conflict of interests.) It's just that we're stuck with poor citizens (but revoke birthright citizenship now!)), so they're temporarily promoted to adjunct membership in the moral community, the better to exclude the people we're (they hope) not stuck with.

Posted by K | October 19, 2007 6:00 PM