Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Politics

It’s For The Children

by Clay Staggs

A wise man I know named George Kelley once told me that whenever a politician proposes to do something “for the children,” that you’d better watch out for your wallet or your freedoms, because they’re coming for one of the two. I propose that the current debate over the S-CHIP program proves out Mr. Kelley’s thesis. It also provides a sad commentary on the way we debate political issues these days.

S-CHIP is the latest political football being kicked back and forth between the Dems in Congress and Bush. Its laudable goal is to provide health insurance to children whose folks make too much money to qualify for medicaid and too little money to afford private insurance. That sounds great, but, to quote Ross Perot, the devil is in the details.

The S-CHIP program is up for renewal, and the Dems in Congress (naturally) want to expand it. Their proposed expansions would include within the definition of eligible families those making up to $80,000 per year. It would also cover “children” up to age 25. It would cover the children of illegal immigrants. It would allow states to use the money to cover adults (over 25). Finally, over half the children covered in the expanded version are currently covered by private pay insurance.

The program now costs $25 billion per year. Bush proposes expansions that would increase the cost to $30B. The Senate version (ultimately adopted in the final bill) expanded it to a cost of $60B per year, and the House would have gone up to $75B. You may ask how this is going to be paid for, and the Dem answer is by increasing tobacco taxes. Some additional details are here. Notably, cigar taxes would go from 5¢ per cigar to 53% of the price, capped at $3 per cigar.

Now, when this bill made its way to Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, claiming it was too expensive. An override vote is set for later this month. To try to rally support for the override, the Democrats had a twelve year old boy, Graeme Frost, who is a beneficiary of the program, deliver their response to the President’s weekly radio address last weekend. In the address, Graeme claimed his family was unable to afford private coverage.

Now, this is the age of the internet. However, the implications of what can be done over the net have apparently not sunken in with everyone, especially the folks who decided to give young Graeme the political mic.

You see, an enterprising blogger at the Free Republic decided to start digging and get a little background on the Frost family. Here’s part of what he found out:

1. Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the Park School, a private school that costs $20,000 per child. 2. Brown wrote that the family lives on $45,000 per year, but icwhatudo notes: “Halsey Frost has owned his own company ‘Frostworks’ since…1992 so he chooses to not give himself insurance. He also employed his wife as ‘bookkeeper and operations management’ prior to her recent 2007 hire at the ‘medical publishing firm.’” 3. His business is housed in a $160,000 building — that he owns. 4. The Frost family lives in a recently remodeled 3,000-square-foot home that cost $485,000.

Now, if true, this obviously means that the Frost family does not prioritize health coverage as much as it does property ownership or private schooling.

But is it true? Who knows? Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has some contrary information indicating that perhaps the property values above are exaggerated and that extended family members are footing the bill for the private schools.

My point in this post is not necessarily to condemn the Frost family for their financial choices. However, some very calculating adults, including his own parents who are very obviously politically oriented against Bush (a bumper sticker on their car says “1-20-09” - the last day GWB is president), allowed this to happen. These adults decided to use their unfortunate circumstances to play on the emotions of voters and legislators to influence the legislation, which, I’d assert, would fail if subjected to analysis on its facts.

Now the Frost family, their personal medical issues, and their family finances, are subjected to a debate over the airwaves and internet. Shame on them. Shame on the Democrat party for allowing this to get started in the first place.

Politically, is this the best we can do? Has debate over government policies come to this low level? Is everything from now on going to be driven by who can come up with the best sad story? Will politics be forever driven by anecdote? Can we not argue a policy on facts and rational needs without pulling out the emotional trump card every time?

I fear that I know the answer. You smokers (and the rest of us too, since the number of smokers continues to decline) had better heed Mr. Kellley’s advice and watch your wallets.