Herman

Cain

Read Herman's bio and previous columns

September 24, 2007

SCHIP Debate Shows Democrats Are Winning the War of Words

With the ongoing help of the “mainstream media,” the Democrats continue to win the war of words. They stick to their talking points like glue on a rug.

The president has stated again that he will veto the Democrats’ version of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but the public rarely hears the reasons. Namely, the Democrats’ proposal more than doubles the cost by expanding eligibility to not just poor families, but to families making $82,000 a year. Some of us call that middle class, which is government subsidized health insurance through the back door.

The liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with subsidizing health insurance for the middle class, just as they see nothing wrong with the Social Security system, Medicare, Medicaid or out-of-control government spending in general. That’s because they see nothing wrong with eventually taxing every dime we earn, or leaving an impossible debt load to our grandchildren.

The Democrats will once again get away with saying the president is against health insurance for poor children, which will be the headline before the veto ink dries on the legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not miss the opportunity to fire some rhetorical grenades at President Bush in a press release immediately after a new Census Bureau report indicated that the number of uninsured children had increased in 2006 from 2005. The total number of uninsured people increased in 2006, so it stands to reason that more children would be uninsured.

Pelosi: “Census Report Illustrates Need to Strengthen SCHIP” (August 28, 2007).

There is a big difference between strengthening the program to make it accessible to more poor children by eliminating some of the inconsistencies in SCHIP, and giving birth to another massive entitlement program.

According an a September 11 report from the Associated Press, health care costs and health insurance costs have increased every year for the last six years, which screams for some badly needed market and regulatory reforms to help accessibility and affordability for children and all families. But Speaker Pelosi failed to mention the need for reforms such as those identified in a recent article by Karl Rove (Wall Street Journal, September 18). As per the Democrats’ solution to everything, let’s just throw more money at the problem since it’s for the children, rather than fix the real problems.

Speaker Pelosi used that same press release to take the usual double barrel shots at the president’s economic policies:

“This new report also provides ample evidence that President Bush’s economic policies of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and massive budget deficits have failed the vast majority of the American people.

“Since President Bush took office, key economic indicators confirm that the economic security of Americans is moving in the wrong direction.”

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, the new report does not provide ample evidence, because it did not try to measure economic indicators. Those enormous tax cuts were not so enormous, but big enough to propel a healthy economy for the last four years. The massive budget deficits were caused by massive increases in government spending, because businesses and the sweat equity of working people generated massive increases in tax revenues.

And as far as the economic security of Americans moving in the wrong direction, you are right. But it is not because of the economy. It is because of irresponsible government spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress that’s more focused on increasing its control than on the economic security of Americans.

If a growing economy, low unemployment rate, low interest rates and high tax revenues are in the wrong direction, then I can’t imagine what the right direction would be. Maybe the Democrats can’t find the right words yet to describe the right direction.

In fairness, Speaker Pelosi did acknowledge in the aforementioned press release that “the poverty rate is down slightly”. But she probably sees that as the wrong direction also.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.