Neglecting the poor on "philosophical grounds"

I guess this can't be seen as much of a surprise:

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.
How ironic that Bush - who called Jesus his favorite philosopher - opposes S-CHIP on "philosophical grounds."

Just what is it about S-CHIP that Bush philosophically opposes? Could it be this?

The 10-year-old program, which is set to expire on Sept. 30, costs the federal government $5 billion a year and helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance on their own. (emphasis mine)
Or maybe he takes issue with this:

About 3.3 million additional children would be covered under the proposal developed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), among others. It would provide the program $60 billion over five years, compared with $30 billion under Bush's proposal. And it would rely on a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, to $1 a pack, which Bush opposes. (Emphasis mine)
What's philosophically wrong with spending an extra $30 billion over five years to insure 3.3 million more kids? Nearly 15 times that amount has been spent on a needless war in Iraq. (With the money that's been spent on Iraq, some 60 million children could've been insured during the time since the war began.

Of course, it's not like Bush's 'favorite philosopher' would want us to take care of the poor... or would he?

'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' (Matthew 25:45)
Hmm, now there's something to think about.

No comments: