Yes, Guess Who this post is about. Here are some clues:
HE is a president
He is in New York at least part of this week
He will address the UN
He has no problems referencing God in his speeches
He also has no problems calling certain groups vermin or rats
He refuses to see reason when it comes to war and the atrocities incited therewith
He can't speak English well, if at all
He's obsessed with nuclear weapons, and his claims of their existence and purposes are widely agreed to be lies
He believes that no one, unless married, should be having sex
He also believes that all that sex which should be taking place is heterosexual, and to do otherwise deserves flat-out legal discrimination
If you guessed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, well you'd be wrong (Although all the above do apply) The correct answer is G.W. Bush. Oh, this doesn't apply, you say - let me elaborate:
HE is a president (Though most didn't vote for him)
He is in New York at least part of this week (he is in NYC today)
He will address the UN (he will address the UN today)
He has no problems referencing God in his speeches (He has a problem being secular- in public policy and prose)
He also has no problems calling certain groups vermin or rats (He'd like to thank the "democRAT majority" ... even though that's improper grammar)
He refuses to see reason when it comes to war and the atrocities incited therewith (Um, can you say IRAQ?... and his most recent opinions on the Vietnam war?)
He can't speak English well, if at all (one word: Strategery)
He's obsessed with nuclear weapons, and his claims of their existence and purposes are widely disregarded as lies (Where are those weapons again?)
He believes that no one, unless married, should be having sex (He supports Abstinence-only Sex Ed)
He also believes that all that sex which should be taking place is heterosexual, and to do otherwise deserves flat-out legal discrimination (Can you say "don't ask, don't tell"... and the refusal to support gay marriage, etc.)
Okay, but what is really upsetting is Bush's latest Congressional fight. This time, it comes in the form of the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). He has already said he will veto it if it reaches his desk. And what would he be vetoing? A bill that would increase funding to the program by $35 billion dollars. Now, I could mention how the US has spent almost $500 billion dollars with the war in Iraq, (almost as much as we spent during TWELVE years in Vietnam, inflation adjusted) but that really isn't the most disturbing part of Bush's rationale for a veto.
No one claims that the lack of health care for America's poor is a problem. Bush would probably admit that more people should have coverage. But what Bush claims is that this increase spending, and increase in the number of children eligible for the program is equitable to a move towards national sponsorship of health insurance. Now, Republicans have a right to fear a National Health Insurance Program if they want to - it goes against their platforms and beliefs, and they would rather people have the choice to choose health care in a market controlled system. But Bush is only using this Republican fear of National Health Care to try and frighten anyone on the fence about this bill. And it might be pointed out that this is not a "DemocRAT" program, but an idea that has been supported on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican alike. Yes, they probably lack the support to override a veto, but it's closer than some of the bills that have been introduced before.
Republicans do have some legitimate claims when opposing government controlled health care - claims like it forces people to have no other options, it imposes undue stress on the economy and government which increases taxes for all, etc. But the people helped by this program do not have employers whom they could buy health care from, they are not members of families who can afford health care. These are CHILDREN. And poor, disadvantaged children at that. Does the government argue over school lunch programs for low-income families? Would you hear Bush say that children don't deserve to eat government food because it lessens their options and leads to socialist tendencies. Children need to eat, and children need to have access to health care. These aren't bouncing society babies with a silver spoon engraved with "Bush" permanently stuck in their mouths, they need our help.
And what about Bush's claim that this bill will raise taxes? Well, it will raise one tax - the tax on tobacco and cigarettes. It seems fine to most - increase the tax on something which causes known health problems (which will hopefully deter some people from continuing the bad habit), and filter that money into something that actually provides a calculated public good. But Bush is friends with too many Tobacco Texans, it seems. What must he be smoking, to not understand the truth and the benefits of this bill? And how about the fact that the war in Iraq itself is like a little self-generating machine of state-sponsored health care already? Who's taxes do you think helps to pay for all those injured soldiers, and keep the veteran's hospitals running (although running below par, i.e. Walter Reed)?
Anger doesn't usually eminate from this blogger (other than the witty, satirical kind made in jest), but this time, it hits home. Bush can say what he wants, but he doesn't have his priorities straight. Let's say, collectively: "Don't mess with our nation's children."