S-CHIP and the Politics of Principle

Posted: Oct 02, 2007 11:08 AM

Democrats and like-witted pundits claim the S-CHIP reauthorization is a defining issue which will seal the GOP's electoral fate next fall. Unscrupulously using children as props in a soulless script replete with ironic appeals to an apparently socialist Almighty, these Denizens of Governmental Dependence gleefully assert the "politics" of S-CHIP will mask their policy's fiscal irresponsibility and trump Republicans' foundational principles.

If this were the case, the Democrats and their Left-wing smear groups wouldn't be threatening to spend millions to intimidate Republicans into abandoning our core beliefs and over-riding a promised Presidential veto. We must and will resist; and, so doing, we will triumph.

First, the S-CHIP bill (H.R. 976) must be vetoed. This politically motivated bill advances a government run health care system by arbitrarily spending $35 billion over the next five years to expand a social program originally targeted at poor children to now include children and adults in families making over $100,000 a year and people who already possess private health care insurance. In consequence, over 2 million people will be crowded out of their existing private health insurance and ensnared in this social welfare program. Moreover, despite purporting otherwise, this bill ensures many of these new enrollees will also be illegal immigrants, who need only show a valid driver's license to join. (Remember: in some states, most recently New York, one need not prove citizenship to receive a driver's license).

Compounding these problems, the bill refuses to prioritize federal spending and, instead, imposes a regressive tax disproportionately impacting the poor. Even with the new tax hike, the new S-CHIP program is unsustainable beyond 2013 and, thus, is fiscally irresponsible. This insult to the taxpayers is exacerbated when one takes into account the Democrats' Budget Resolution's promise of massive personal tax increases, many of which will be slated to fund S-CHIP or worse in future years.

At its core, then, the S-CHIP debate provides the following stark contrasts between the two parties' guiding principles:

1. Republicans believe Americans are sovereign citizens. Democrats believe Americans are hapless victims.

2. Republicans believe the federal government must serve sovereign Americans. Democrats believe Americans must serve a sovereign federal government.

3. Republicans believe in reducing people's taxes. Democrats believe in raising people's taxes.

4. Republicans believe social programs exist to make poor people self-reliant. Democrats believe social programs exist to make all people state dependents.

5. Republicans want poor people to escape the welfare state. Democrats want all people inside the welfare state.

6. Republicans believe America needs a fiscally sound social safety net that temporarily helps poor people and respects taxpayers. Democrats believe America needs a big government trampoline that permanently traps poor people and impoverishes taxpayers.

7. Republicans believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have escaped from it. Democrats believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have been added to it.

8. Republicans believe government should not use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses. Democrats believe government should use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses.

9. Republicans believe in free enterprise and our citizenry. Democrats believe in the welfare state and its bureaucracy.

If our Republican Party is daunted by the politics of S-CHIP and shrinks from reaffirming its defining principles, social welfare programs will never help poor Americans escape governmental dependence. Instead, the Democrats will continue their push to shackle Americans with a bureaucrat-centered health care system and other insidious forms of governmental dependence; and our Republican Party – the party of the Great Emancipator – will not only lose the next election.

It will lose its soul.