Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Mitch McConnell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Kids First
by Mitch McConnell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Sometimes you really can have too much of a good thing. If you doubt that, look no further than the hijacking of a successful federal program by some in Congress.

The program at risk is the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which helps provide health insurance for children in families too well off to qualify for Medicaid but still poor enough to have difficulty affording private insurance.

In many ways, SCHIP—or K-CHIP, as it is commonly known in Kentucky—has proved a remarkable success. The rate of uninsured children in America has dropped 25 percent from 1996, the year before the law was enacted, to 2005. Last year, 6.6 million children had health care because of SCHIP, with over 50,000 of them in Kentucky.

So when SCHIP came before the Senate for reauthorization, I was hoping to support it, as I did 10 years ago. I also hoped to improve upon it by adding tools to help find and enroll the kids out there who qualify but still lack health care.

Unfortunately, that's not what others in Congress had in mind. They viewed the reauthorization of this popular program as a license to raise taxes, increase spending and take a giant leap toward government-run health care.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts the true cost of their new proposal at $112 billion, $41 billion more than the claimed price tag. To pay for it, the bill's sponsors want to more than double the federal tax on tobacco.

That would strike directly at farmers here in Kentucky and hinder our state's economy. Many of the people who will pay the higher tax are from low-income families—the very families SCHIP was designed to protect.

They also want to extend SCHIP to people it was never meant to cover. As the name implies, the State Children's Health Insurance Program was intended to cover children, not adults.

While Kentucky operates a responsible program, a number of other states have exploited loopholes to use their children's health funds on adults. Rather than closing these loopholes, the new proposal protects states that raid their kids' health funds.

They also propose allowing families in certain states, like New York, who make four times the federal poverty level to still qualify for SCHIP insurance. That means a family in New York City making $82,600 a year will be able to drop the private insurance they currently have for their kids and use the federal dime instead.

Luring people away from the private market this way will eventually remove two million people from private health coverage. Some in Congress hope this eventually leads to a complete government takeover of health care.

SCHIP was originally created to help the needy. But it's clear the authors of this new proposal have gotten greedy.

That's why I proposed an alternate bill, the Kids First Act, that focuses on SCHIP's true goal: protecting low-income children. It would reauthorize SCHIP for five more years, ensure that children stay enrolled by adding $14 billion on top of the current SCHIP budget, and add 1.3 million new kids to the SCHIP program by 2012.

Just as important, my plan would do so without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

Not only does the Kids First Act cost significantly less than the liberals' bill, but many states, including Kentucky, would have more SCHIP funds to spend covering kids next year under my proposal than under the more expensive alternative.

The Kids First Act also improves upon current SCHIP law by providing funds to reach out to those low-income children who are eligible, but still not taking advantage of the program.

And it will help small businesses provide coverage for their employees by allowing them to band together for greater purchasing power, making health care more affordable.

Like many Americans, I'm frustrated about much of our current health care system. But I don't believe that raising taxes, discouraging families from buying private insurance or letting adults leech off a program designed for children should be part of the solution.

All of those actions would put us on a slippery slope toward government-run health care. Instead, Congress should protect a program that works, and make sure that low-income children who rely on SCHIP for health insurance stay covered.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Senator McConnell of Kentucky is the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate.

Be the first to read Senator McConnell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Healthcare or Concern about Tobacco?
Part of my service in the Air Force ('67 to '71) was in North Carolina.

40 years ago it was recognized that tobacco as a crop was going to continue to disappear.

The tobacco lobby, and the farmers that support it, go hand in hand every year to Congress for subsidies. (Some of us cynics could easily label this as entitlements. What's the difference? Taking taxpayer monies to give to others.)

I'm sorry, but these farmers and the tobacco industry has had over 4 DECADES to plant alternative crops and get into different businesses. 4 DECADES. If they can't adapt in 4 DECADES they need to go out of business.

I find Senator McConnell's concern for HIS tobacco farmers rather interesting.

He also talks about helping small business band together so they can buy insurance for their employees. How magnanimous of the Senator. Keep the pockets of those insurance companies full.

Senator, you don't like the healthcare provisions. Great. Work on getting a compromise. Quit being an obstructionist who wants it his way, or the highway.

As for tobacco taxes. I don't want to hear about the suffering of the farmers in Kentucky who've had 40 years to start planting other crops. How about something that you could produce ethanol from? ADM is having a hard time keeping up with all of the money that they're getting from corn and ethanol.

Doing what's right
This program has become a means for the Congress to support Illegals in our nation. I hope that whatever Senator McConnell can do to keep this program intact and helping poverty level kids get insurance would be the right thing to do.

The answer isn't more taxes or removing people from paying for insurance. This should only apply to people who cannot afford insurance.

And a word to dogdoug. Not sure what Kentucky farmers are growing but in North Carolina and Virginia the tobacco crop is being replaced with cotton. You should care about taxes that are leveied on citizens. You will be paying one way or the other.

consequences
What a shame that an effective program like SCHIP is getting steamrolled by politicians who care more about their next sound bite than the children who are benefiting from sound government practices. There are consequences for people who are so arrogant and self-important. Someone who would trample the weakest among us doesn't deserve to have their name mentioned. The children who can't speak for themselves need men like Mitch McConnell to keep working hard for the common sense medical programs.

Jack
Farm programs are one of the biggest rip offs of taxpayers in the US.

Please tell me why I should be concerned about farmers getting money to continue to grow tobacco? This program originally started to give these farmers a buffer while they shifted production to other crops. 40 year shift?

How about sugar beets? I've worked in the food industry for 25 years. Chicago used to be a major producer of candy in the US.

The rest of the world uses cane sugar as a primary source for their sugar to produce candy. Finished candy isn't subject to any tariffs, etc.

So then we get the sugar beet farmers, who want the government to DICTATE to the candy companies that they must use sugar beets to produce their products.

So, over the last 10 years guess what happened? All of the candy companies have moved their production outside of the US. In some cases this has been crazy. Example Lifesaver moved a facility from Kalamazoo, MI to just over the Canadian border.

Wonderful program.

Want to talk about milk pricing throughout the country?

dogjudge writes...
"Senator, you don't like the healthcare provisions."

Do you think the senor citizens who will be effected by the Democrats SCHIP expansion bill will like having their medicare cut?

The SCHIP bill introduces $37.1 billion in cuts to Medicare providers. It cuts hospital care, skilled nursing care, home health care, oxygen therapy and access to wheelchairs.

$37.1 BILLION in cuts for the elderly to provide for children who's parents can afford private health insurance.

Senator McConnell is merely suggesting that the SCHIP program be kept the same and to spend money to raise awareness about the program rather then expand it to include children who already have insurance.

You gave birth to them, you insure them
"poor enough to have difficulty affording private insurance" usually means "want to spend their money on other stuff."

Prioritize, people. Prioritize. You can afford catastrophic health care insurance, which is all you really need, if you give up other things. That is what working people have had to do throughout American history, until the GOTTARIGHT people came into their lives and convinced them that they GOTTARIGHT to things they choose not to pay for or cannot afford (such as private education, home ownership, 60" HDTVs) and consequently must have a PROGRAM to provide those things.

Drop the beer and cigarettes and buy health insurance.

AudiR10...
as always I agree 100% with your post!

There was a poster here yesterday who said his/her sister signed her two kids up for SCHIP and now she has more money to pay off her credit cards!!!

So the taxpayers are paying for her children’s health care so she can afford whatever it is that she's putting on credit!

GOPGin
I love it when people assume things that they know nothing about.

"afford whatever it is that she's putting on credit!"

How many people have you known that are really poor?

I was raised in some tough neighborhoods in Chicago. That being said, when I got back from the Air Force in '71, I was a purchasing agent/plant manager for a small company while I finished my college degrees. The plant was a couple of blocks from Cabrini Green, one of the worse housing projects in the Chicago area. During the three years I worked there, it truly opened my eyes to people who are "disadvantaged". I'm not talking about people who are constantly on welfare, I'm talking about people who would be considered the working poor.

Not everyone is going to be the CEO of Microsoft.

Yeah, that woman might be throwing away her money. At the same time she might be working two jobs, trying to use her credit cards to pay for things like food, and transportation to get to work.

I thought that Barry Goldwater was great. He had an understanding and a compassion for the poor in this country.

The current crop of "compassionate conservatives". Well, I've got mine screw everyone else.

dogjudge...
People in America who are “disadvantaged” are people who legitimately cannot work. Not able adults who think that America owes them because they were born into a bad neighborhood.

"How many people have you known that are really poor?"

My parents. Thanks for asking.

And guess what? As poor as I was when I was child, I grew up, took some responsibility, worked hard, and now I have a good job.

Success is an opportunity for everyone in America, not just a select few.

dogjudge
Further, I find it interesting that you felt the need to comment on my post to AudiR10, rather than my post to you about the $37 billion be taken from Medicare to cover children who already have insurance.

GOPGin
First of all is there a rule here that I've got to comment on certain things?

You made the comment, "People in America who are “disadvantaged” are people who legitimately cannot work."

Interesting definition. Another thing that you get to make up to suit your interests.

So what do you propose should happen to the MILLIONS of people out there who are in minimum paying jobs? Could or could not be minimum wage.

If they all quit working most of them would be better off financially than they are now. Guess what happens when they all quit working? They all go on various government programs!

You made it out of poverty and I made it out. Great for us. And so what?

I'm 59, have owned three business and doing very well for myself. I've got two college degrees and do a lot of volunteer work. I also served in the Air Force for four years to pay this country back for all that I've gotten.

So what do you tell a 16 year old African American kid, who can make a couple of hundred bucks a day selling drugs, or he can work at a fast food restaurant making minimum wage.

What do you tell the mother of two who's doing everything she can to do the right thing and still not make ends meet?

Pull up your bootstraps and get a higher paying job? Easy to say, a lot harder to do.

You tell 'em, Mitch!
Keep up on the latest at a new blog authored by a young conservative.

THE 18th MEMO
http://memo18.blogspot.com/

dogjudge
I would tell that 16 year old that there are better options than selling drugs. Like going to school & taking his free education seriously (although it might not be the best education.) Getting decent grades in school can get one into a decent community college (which the government would help pay for), that way he could get a decent job that would put some decent food in his stomach everyday and provide decent benefits. It doesn’t have to be the best paying job. Just something that would help him gain some independence and stand on his own two feet rather than living off the government.

I’m all for my tax dollars going toward helping children and teenagers in bad neighborhoods realize that that life is not their only option. I’m not all for my tax dollars going toward people who make their living selling drugs because they wouldn't take advantage of the opportunities America gives them.

GOPGin
Yeah, the 16 year old is easy. He's going to listen to you.

So what about the mother, father, whoever who can't make ends meet? Tough luck. Get a better job? BTW, who's going to feed their kids while they are trying to get a better job? There are a whole lot of folks out there who are trying to do the best they can.

Just throw them off of the bus?

the18thmemo
Great another keyboard warrior.

Went to your website.

You need to grow up.

Supporting the troops by convincing other college kids that the war in Iraq is correct?

Thank god we don't need to rely on patriots such as yourself to keep us safe.

AF '67-'71

dogjudge
My dad worked 2 jobs. One was a minimum wage full-time job & the other was a part-time job in which he would sometimes go months without a paycheck. My mother also had a full-time job. I would come home from school & sit alone until my mother came home & sometimes went to bed without even seeing my dad that day. We didn’t get help from the government & nor did we feel entitled to help from the government. We barley had clothes & we never went on vacation, but we had a roof over our heads and macaroni & cheese in our bellies.

S-CHIP
this bill, that was supposed to help children in families which cannot afford healthcare, was so distorted in the new authorization that adults and those earning too much money would be covered. It would also allow illegal aliens to be covered! I read that the President will veto it and hope that veto will stand. It is one more push by the Dems toward socialized medicine.

Throw Them Off The Bus?
Dogjudge, that's the best idea you've had! Welfare has reached the point where it is considered an "institutional right". Why should the sixteen year old finish school when he knows he can go on the welfare/social security/food stamp roles and sell crack on the side. How many alleged "poor" homes have you been in that have 52" flat screens? Believe me, that is the rule, not the exception. As for the poor mother with two children, where the hell is the father that should be supporting them! Is it possible she doesn't know who the father is? I don't mind giving people a hand up but I'm tired of paying for all the hand outs!

GOPGin
I understand your comments about your family. That's great. You overcame a lot of things. So did I. We succeeded. There's nothing wrong with that.

The younger a person is, the easier it is to turn around their lives. (Would you agree with that?)

At the same time (and here's our disconnect) there are a lot of people out there who are trying their best and aren't going to be able to turn their lives around. If they are making the best effort they can, what do you do with them?

Like it or not, there are 19 year old girls out there with two kids. Yeah, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant, etc. Throw them off the bus even though they're trying to do the best they can?

Thanks for the reasonable conversation.

For a lot of folks here, these types of things simply get into make disparaging remarks about the other person without making any points.

dogjudge
I was also going to thank you for the intelligent debate. I agree that some people come on here simply to insult others with opposing views.

I will point out that you have an intelligent view point & I respectfully disagree.

hmmm
Well Senator i live here in Louisville,KY.

and i opposed Schip when it was first put through Congress 10 years ago. And hmm i guess you are proud of that vote? So now that it is expanding why cry about that? Don,t so many of programs that the idiots in Congress starts just keep getting bigger and bigger? The schip program never should have been started and to complain about it now makes me wonder about who i might be voting for next year? I will have to wait and see who is running against you and see if any true conservative is running here for the US Senate.

Just as the Rep wrote on Townhall, the Schip program is going to bankrupt the country. Ha i have been saying that since the early 1990,s. As all the entilement programs are going to kill the nation one day. Just give it about 10 years then crash.

Blah, blah blah...
Do these politicians really write this stuff, or is it staff? Staff I'm sure. Just shows how indistinguishable these Republicans are from Democrats, supporting a welfare scheme as this Schip, and why they deserve to lose next year, big time.

Bill
Your issue isn't with welfare, or anything else.

You don't want to pay taxes for apparently anything.

I'd debate what you are saying, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're making a bunch of nonsensical, pejoratives that border on the ridiculous.

52" plasma TVs in every welfare recipient's home? Please join us in the real world. Let me walk you around Chicago and show you what true needy people are like.

Better yet. Since I'm sure you're a devout Christian, why don't you talk to the head of your church. I'm sure he can help you pull your head out of your .

Gov't entitlement programs
have gone way overboard. More than 50% of our citizens benefit from some type of giveaway. That's an astounding figure! Does anyone really believe all these people are really that poor? If so, then the country is in big trouble. To those who try to guilt people because they are sick of it (dogjudge), remember where we are right now - with entitlements out of control! Of course, we're against further handouts. We've already put up enough of our tax dollars and a huge chunk of it is wasted and alot of people take advantage of the system as well. So, quit calling us mean and selfish. Instead, let's figure out what to cut, who's stealing from the system, and how to use the MASSIVE amount of money already available more efficiently.

Kentucky Health
"Many of the people who will pay the higher tax are from low-income families" - Sen. McConnell

I find it hard to have any sympathy for the "poor" of Kentucky who will bear the brunt of the tax increase, due to their nicotine addiction. Make a choice: health insurance or smokes.

Speaking to the Mother of Two
"What do you tell the mother of two who's doing everything she can to do the right thing and still not make ends meet?"

I assume you mean the Mother of Two Who Can't Pick The Father Of Those Two Out Of A Lineup. If she in fact can name the father of her children, why hasn't she done anything to insure that he helps to support them?

Being a Mother of Two myself, and having worked two jobs to look after them without once considering welfare or any other Gimmee Program, I would tell her that what she has to do is work smarter. Send her to my house and I will train her as my Mama trained me. Mama raised five of us on 1/3 the money you probably spend on your only child, and she frequently said that rather than take handouts she would stick her head in the oven and turn on the gas.

We did not need handouts. We had family.

And by the way, if you are not making ends meet, you are NOT doing all you can. Prioritize, people. Prioritize.

Federal Healthcare is Unconstitutional
Congress has no power under Art.1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution to take our money and spend it on healthcare. Doing so is an act of tyranny because it is outside the rule of law - the written Constitution. As our founding fathers warned, "good ideas" and those seeking to "help" are the greatest dangers against our Liberties. Every American needs to stop debating what policies sound the best and start rigidly holding our federal government to the confines of our Constitution. If the huge federal bureaucracy would stop taking our money and spending it illegally, States and communities would have more than enough talent and resources to solve its local problems.

CT Makes a Good Point
__"More than 50% of our citizens benefit from some type of giveaway." It's probably a percentage higher than that,has you include subsidies,and grants.I believe you will find,that every form of legislation,with original intent to assist the poor,those in need,has ballooned to provide for the masses.There's security,and profit,in these measures,has the increased masses profit.Has I pointed out yesterday,posting to another blog on townhall,the gov. Health and Human Services assets were $513,909 million at the end of FY 2006.Its total liabilities were $78,425 million at the end of FY 2006. All these entitlements reflect "benefits due,and payable to the public from the Medicare,Medicaid, insurance programs." See this report here, http://www.hhs.gov/of/reports/account/acct06/pdf/section1/finstat.pdf Yearly entitlement programs increase to benefit a greater mass and buy their vote. I'm sure employees of these entitlement programs vote to insure their job stays intact,as well has,any private service that benefits working with HHS. You know a great deal of the public,who benefits from entitlements is going to vote for their provider.
-------------------------------------------------
__These programs were started to benefit those in need,as a measure to assist,and overcome the need.Not to be a constant drain on the American economy,but a benefit from our overall prosperity.Their are many among us that deserve our compassion,and assistance,but many have passionately prospered according to that American compassion.Secured their positions,and possessions,with a blind eye to the results.

CT
I'll agree with part of your post. The part that relates to insuring that these programs benefit only those folks who should benefit from them.

Other than those who are taking advantage of the system, I can't imagine any sensible taxpayer would disagree with you.

Take a step back. Yes, these were programs started by the Democrats. Can you come up with one Government program, outside of the entitlement area, that HASN'T had its share of abuse. To me that's one of the bigger issues. The idea is commendable it's the execution that's the problem.

With this point, it is NOT my intention to criticize the war in Iraq, it is my intention to show how government programs are abused.

Look at some of the things coming out of the Iraq war. What was it 25 million dollars (or whatever) that was on pallets that the government simply lost track of? Recently how about the 190,000 weapons that were lost? How about the no-bid contracts to Haliburton that have had all the abuses. How about the no-bid contracts to the Iraqi "contractors" such as Blackwater? (An aside there. All of the talk about us pulling our troops out of Iraq. Haven't heard word one about pulling all of these contractors out.)

We ALL have to work at changing these things.

I'm not disappointed with the Democrats for starting these programs. I AM disappointed with the Democrats for not pulling in the abuses. Similarly, the Republicans had 12 years of controlling Congress. What did THEY do over that time period to help reign in these abuses?

Final question.

Honestly. If these programs had very little abuses and they were truly helping needy people would you have a problem with them? So is it the programs that you object to, or the abuses?

AudiR10 is spot-on.
I once worked as a probation officer for 8 years and one thing most of the chronically "poor" did was reject conventional means of self support. And it wasn't just the offender population that I was exposed to while on the job.

The others things most of them rejected was education, self-control, common civility, and a desire to control their most base instincts. The so called poor that I witnessed in those 8 years were very well fed, they had the multiple TVs, cars, free rent, free utilities, jewelry and plenty of spare time. A pay raise was just a new government entitlement away.

They knew they were pets of many politicians, and to change meant having to give up a chosen lifestyle. Not a chance. Happiness was just a hit from a crack pipe, a swig of cheap wine and/or a few drags from a joint away. Conventional work was considered something for saps. Prioritize? What's that? Does it make you feel good?

It seems to have become a near mortal sin in the religion of government to demand the poor to stop producing children until they can afford them, get a job, pay at least part of their way, and to work for some of their government handouts. To deny an unconditional government handout means, in today's social discourse, that one lacks compassion. Such is an enormous distortion that perptuates misery.

There is honor in all honest work, and it's a true shame that the left (and some on the right) do not accept that. To do so means that they'd be voted out of office, and in their eyes, that's not about to happen.


Repubs vs Cons
This article explemplifies the difference between Republicans and conservatives very well. With all due respect to Sen. McConnell, what we have here is a Republican senator not only in favor of yet another entitlement program; but asking to increase it by $14B as well! This is hardly a 'conservative' position.

Also, this program is a poster-child for the problems with federally run social programs. As Sen McConnell attests, some states are actively looking for and exploiting loopholes in the federal programs in order to get a larger share of the public pie. Social programs like this are FAR better run at the state than federal level and a true conservative work to set it up that way. If each state were to implement (and FUND) it's own 'xCHIP' program, it would allow each state to determine the level of aid and the qualifications for coverage without any 'cheating'. This would allow New York (NY-CHIP?) to cover adults and/or families making $82k if so desired without any undo burden on Kentucky.

So how about it Senator? Introduce a bill to scrap the federal SCHIP program all together and give the money used back to the people in lower taxes. That would allow states to implement and fund programs like this as they see fit. Afterall, was this not how our founding fathers intended the constitutional system to work?

Too much common sense, roscoedtx
Our politicians will never understand it.

The Senator's column
Given all of the complaints at this site about earmarks, pork, etc. I'd like to know your feelings about these comments in the Senator's column.

"To pay for it, the bill's sponsors want to more than double the federal tax on tobacco.

That would strike directly at farmers here in Kentucky and hinder our state's economy."


Tobacco
Here in Kanukistan they have found a solution to the unconscionable tobacco taxes that are supposed to simultaneously discourage smoking and support all kinds of Goodie Programs: tax free (illegal) cigarettes are now sold on the Native (Indian) reserves where no Government Entity dares to set foot, and all the government can do about it is whine. So what Kentucky has to do is establish an Indian Reserve that includes all the tobacco farmers and their problem is solved.

Marlin Newburn,AudiR10,+ post =
__Before I was permanently disabled,I would only see entitlement receipients from a distance.If I happened to be laid off,I would see,and hear from those,that milked the system.I was more intent on earning a living,and make real money, than I was to scrape bottom,and eat the crumbs that fell from the table.Then an un-insured, drunk,entitlement junky changed,and limited my independence.The result of that head-on collision actually helped open my eyes,and see the political tool of entitlement programs. The general public has a limited view of its inner workings,the distribution of funds to states, and how those states interpret,and enforce its rules,and regulations.With the Lords help,my family,and friends,I certainly am blessed that I do not need to be completely limited by it.This certainly is not a blessing for the liberal, progressive,factions in this nation.I will expose the truths I know,to who ever listens.
-------------------------------------------------__Those that actually need the assistance to overcome lifes difficulties,and live as independent Americans are being held back.

Expound Truth
Wonderful post, although I'm sure it won't sink in to most of the folks here.

In the 70s, I used the L in Chicago to get back and forth to my job. During parts of that trip, you got to go through some of Chicago's worse neighborhoods.

I can't believe the number of people who used those same trains and never saw the real world. Slums and poor people? There are NONE of those in Chicago.

Isn't there some song that has the words about, "he who looks, but does not see."

None so blind as he who does not see
Could not be more appropriate

This program
is a living breathing example of how little government become big government. Happens all the time!

dogjudge,
In an earlier post you said, "For a lot of folks here, these types of things simply get into make disparaging remarks about the other person without making any points.'

Kind of like your post to 18thmemo?

I normally ignore your posts because for the most part they are filled with nothing but anger, bitterness, and sarcasm. I would recommend you read Mona Charen's book, "Do Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help." It is an eye opener about
government "helping" people. This new version of SCHIP would be exactly the same.


CT, excellent post.
Let me tell you a typical scene that my husband sees daily in his business. Here come Joe and Barb with a sick animal. Despite being in collection already, my husband does not deny them care on a Sunday afternoon when he is on call for emergencies. The animal has not had any kind of regular care or check ups. Joe and Barb plead for "everything to be done to save their animal, but they have no money to pay for it." Barb weighs +250 pounds and Joe is hooked up to oxygen. They are both 45-55 years old. Joe says they both rely on disability payments from month to month. Both of them whip out cell phones and then Joe heads outside to light up a cigarette because he is "nervous." My husband provides services knowing he will never receive one penny.

Unfortunately, this story is not hypothetical. My husband sees this each day, often many times a day. Government programs just encourage this behavior and people with this entitlement mentality expect life to give them everything for free since the government already takes care of them for other free things.

roscoedtx, thank you
for that superb post.

dogjudge,a beautiful song originating...
...from the Word,which enforces its lesson."With ears you will hear,but will not understand;and seeing you will see,but you will not peceive." A large part of the American public hears of all the laws put in place to insure,those facing turbulant times,are assisted.They see their money freely removed to pay for assistance,and the could care less.I call these people,as others do,"the drive bys".Safe and secure in their world,as I once was,stupified by the rhetoric of politicians.

not ashamed to be right
Calling someone a keyboard warrior may not be the kindest thing, but it doesn't come close to traitor and a lot of other things vented here. Mild remark, I apologize.

That being said, having served in the AF from '67 to '71 I get a little upset when I start hearing about people who talk about supporting their country, but are unwilling to put their body where there mouth is. Don't have to join the military, but at his website he equates being in the military with going to a college campus to tell everyone how they should be supporting the war.

Sarcasm? Just my way of getting a point across.

Anger and bitterness? Anger I'll agree with, but that's also a reflection of passion about issues.

Bitterness? You're welcome to that perception. Of course I don't feel that's the case.

dogjudge, thank you for your apology.
I would not expect you to "feel that is the case." In my experience many, if not most, liberals are negative, bitter, and angry. As for anger being connected to passion about issues...no, I do not agree with that at all. I was just pointing out that before you criticize someone else's posts (for the very same thing that you do) should look at your own posts first.

Expound Truth, I do not believe for one minute that the "laws put in place" will actually be there (despite the promises of politicians) if one encounters life changing circumstances. I also do not believe Social Security will be around when my husband and I reach retirement age. I do believe in planning, as much as is reasonably possible, to have life/disability/health insurance and savings for catastrophic life events/accidents. This means going without many luxuries, expensive homes/vacations, new cars, etc. Not believing the government will bail you out in adverse times is simply reality (in other words it is NOT being stupified by the rhetoric of politicians.)

Not ashamed to be right
IMO, your points are the class of this board. It is tiresome when the 'needy' keep thrusting themselves upon us. I get it everyday because I'm not one of those politically correct people and am therefore supposed to feel properly guilty. IOW, I fit the profile of the sucker.

Reaching into your pocket only guarantees that they'll selectively zero in on you everytime they see you. If you don't, they're just as likely to cuss you, call you a racist or some such.

Yes it really does come down to the entitlement mentality. Before the 'great society', people were embarrassed seek public help and did so as a last resort. Now, not only are they unabashed to do so, they now willingly respond to the liberal encouragement to make dependency a way of life and continue to demand more.

You are right about DJ - he's doesn't object to gov't largesse - only in whose direction it flows. While I thank him for his service and agree that farm welfare should have been zeroed out with the departure of FDR and his 'fair deal'(which itself was proved to be ineffective), I don't appreciate his attitudes, particularly that the un-uniformed shouldn't have an opinion.

The new teatament encougrages us to charity as it will be reflected, not only as a reward hereafter, but in our own personal wellbeing. Liberals, however, convince themselves of and assume this self satisfaction by encouraging and supporting gov't sponsored theft thus assuaging their self induced guilt.

Despite their best intentions, phony as they so often are, it doesn't work that way and never has. That's one reason the libs loath and despise the ten commandments for it's right there in the tenth: Thou shalt not covet they neighbors goods.

Hey Mitch....ditch KY Gov. Fletcher
August 9, 2007

Senator Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McConnell:

I am writing to share with you my displeasure in your endorsement of Gov. Fletcher. I am most disturbed by his attempts to take the focus off of his own issues by attempting to scapegoat poker and gaming. This pandering to what I call "big government social conservatives" who prefer a nanny state to free will and small government will significantly wound our party going into 2008. I strongly urge you to disavow this man and his nanny state vision for our great state.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


TheEngineer

My letter McConnell's boy, Fletch..Pt. 1
August 9, 2007

Governor Ernie Fletcher
700 Capital Avenue
Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601

Dear Governor Fletcher:

I am writing in regards to your reelection campaign. I am a lifelong conservative Republican – pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. However, I am also pro-limited government. As such, I am very dismayed by your recent embrace of a nanny state for the good people of Kentucky. In fact, your entire reelection campaign is seemingly based only on advocacy of a position that people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions regarding playing poker or other casino games (or to even vote on the issue). Do you really believe casinos cause crime, as if it’s the casino’s fault and not the criminals’? Quite frankly, your claims that casinos cause crime reminds me of something Sarah Brady would say about guns! Given that you feel this way, I find it difficult to trust you with my other freedoms.

I realize you had to come up with something on which to campaign, and that could not have been an easy task for you this year. Still, couldn’t you find something Republican on which to campaign? It seems you and Sen. McConnell think the majority of Kentuckians want the state government to protect them from themselves (and McConnell apparently feels the federal government needs to police the Internet to keep people from playing poker, like in Iran and China). Sorry, but if you continue on this path, I think you’ll find on Election Day that this is an erroneous assumption. I urge you to at least gather some polling data, because it may just be a situation where you have too small a circle of friends who don’t realize that people like to play poker and games of chance for entertainment and relaxation, and that only a very small percentage of players develop issues.

My letter McConnell's boy, Fletch..Pt. 2
As a result of the scandals of your administration, your embrace of a nanny state, your scapegoating of the many good people in Kentucky who enjoy an occasional game of poker, and the simply fact that the Republican Party could use some housecleaning to restore us to being a party of small government (and you have an off-year election that will set the tone for the 2008 elections)… unless you radically change course I plan to vote for Steve Beshear.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

Letter to McConnell concerning FoF, Pt 1
August 9, 2007

Senator Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McConnell:

As a constituent and voter, I am writing in response to the August 1st Focus on the Family letter to Congress concerning Internet gaming. I urge you to disregard their recommendations concerning Internet gaming, as these nanny-statish ideas are bad for America and potentially disastrous for the Republican Party.

The idea that Americans need the federal government to protect us from ourselves is laughable. What I do in my own home is not the business of Focus on the Family. I could not help but note that FoF and other freedom-restrictors fail to mention that every wager ever made online was made voluntarily. Internet poker sites are not predatory…people play poker because they enjoy it. We’re not degenerates as Focus would have you believe; rather, we enjoy matching wits in contests of skill.

HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, addresses EVERY concern mentioned by Focus on the Family. It seems FoF should praise HR 2046 for having systems in place to address Focus’ list of so-called “problems” [age verification, regulated sites, self-exclusion lists, funding for treatment for the 0.6% (according to a recent Harvard study) of players who develop issues, and state and sports league opt-outs], especially as the testimony at the June 8 House Financial Services Committee hearing on this conclusively proved that Internet gaming can be regulated effectively. I write “so-called” because it is obvious that Focus would oppose Internet gaming even if there were no negatives, as Focus is simply opposed to all gambling…even games of skill like poker. They are entitled to their opinion, but they should just say that, instead of pretending that their concerns are rooted in the “problems” listed in their letter.

Letter to McConnell concerning FoF, Pt 2
Regarding their specific recommendations, I ask that you help ensure that the UIGEA regulations do not exceed the specific requirements of the Act. As you know, UIGEA did not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists are fond of saying this. However, they neglect to mention that very few types of online gambling are illegal under federal law. Specifically, federal law covers only some sports betting. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gaming. Regarding other states, prohibitionists are trying to use ambiguous, arcane gambling laws to claim that some types of Internet gaming MIGHT be illegal in their states. To keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks and citizens, I ask that the upcoming UIGEA regulations apply only where laws are unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to specific forms of gambling. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet gaming, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it. I also ask that you not support the U.S. withdrawal from the gaming sectors of the WTO. Kentucky needs an effective WTO, not one that will be stripped of effectiveness, even after penalizing us billions of dollars for stopping Americans from choosing to spend their own money while in their own homes.

Finally, the 2008 elections are shaping up to be a real bloodbath for our party, especially as it looks like Steve Beshear will end 2007 by trouncing Gov. Fletcher – while running on a pro-gaming platform. This, plus the overall mood of the nation, will make running for reelection on a nanny-state platform political suicide. You may win in 2008, but it is hard to see our party controlling anything any day soon.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Subsidies
If McConnell really wants to reduce the scope of government (rather than merely reducing what he doesn't like), he should introduce legislation repealing all federal farm subsidies. We don't need socialized farming in America. And, if government continues to pay for harm caused by tobacco, it seems tobacco should be taxed accordingly, both to discourage it's use and to pay for itself.

Even a cursory read of the Federalist Papers shows the wisdom of taxing what we don't want more of vs. taxing things that we do wish to increase, like income.

If he doesn't like these solutions, he ought to go with the true conservative solution of pushing for legislation prohibiting federal expenditures on treament of tobacco-related illnesses. That way, people are free to do what they want without expecting ME to foot the bill for their irresponsibility.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.