Taking Care of Their Own?

Get ready for more fascist-like arguments on why you, yes you, should be caring for someone else's kids...or as many in Congress would put it, 'why we must take care of "the children"'.

"The Children" have become a powerful rallying cry in recent years as the unchecked mommy culture lobby becomes stronger by the month, successfully pulling products from the market because of the risk to 'the children', forcing more stringent FCC laws for 'the children'. Even in my beloved New Orleans you've become second-class citizens at Mardi Gras if you don't have 'the children', the translation that you aren't allowed to be on the front line with a traditional ladder if there are children because, well, somehow Mardi Gras has become about them. And your own civil rights be damned.

Now comes proposed expansion of the government's health insurance to about 4 million children AND their parents, passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, but without the Republican support to overcome a promised veto by the President. Now before we damn Bush yet again on his heartless cruelty, you may want to pause and think about what the bill's supporters, mostly the spineless Nancy Pelosi and company, are trying to accomplish; forcing you, and me, to pay for yet another benefit and special privilege not afforded to us. We have Food Stamps and W.I.C and all kinds of government-sponsored assistance for needy moms and their children. When's the last time Congress passed a law assuring food and shelter for childless men? Anybody know? Now they take it a step further, but for 'the children'.

The measure, expected to be passed in the Senate this week has been called "the most ambitious effort to reduce the nation's 47 million uninsured people that Congress will consider before the 2008 election" by USA Today. Those 47 million people being mostly children. And at the high level, a noble and caring cause, until you dig deep. If you're thinking such a plan is going to help poor white kids in Tennessee or Louisiana, you're taking a big gamble. Like most Federal social programs designed to help 'the children', this too will likely be best implemented in the larger inner cities of the extreme east and west coasts, and often accessible primarily to minorities; And while I don't begrudge them of that, it's all too common that such things are aimed not really for minorities or poor people, but for African Americans in the inner cities, and poor Latino children in Texas or needy white kids in Omaha or sick Asian kids in Pensacola be damned.

That's not my only beef with the plan. The 10-year-old State Children's Health Insurance Program was passed in '97 by President Clinton and the then Republican-controlled Congress. The legislation on the table this week was originally designed to extend that program which expires in 5 days and Bush has asked Congress to send him a 'clean' extension. The program now assists 6.6 million participants including about 600,000 adults. But Pelosi and company didn't stop there when writing the extension; they've added another $35 billion over five years to the already $5 billion-a-year program, $30 billion more than Bush asked for.

Only five days remain before the program expires and in brow-beating his colleagues into passing it, Greasy Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY (of course) asked: "When you go home, the question is going to be, 'Were you with the kids or were you not?'". And THAT'S the rallying cry we hear all too often. Fuck the details; make it about 'the children'. It's a typical 'Do you like beating your wife' kind of question for those who might dare oppose it. How many of us live our daily lives without the benefit of health insurance, men and women and most specifically men? And while I'd never want to see a child go without, how has it somehow become accepted behavior that we provide special rights and programs and privileges for people simply based on their young age when so many others go hungry and without? All men (and women) created equal, right?

Many in Congress want you to see needy inner city kids who need check-ups and meds for a runny nose. What I see is more oppressive, forced support of what I DON'T have access to for someone else, all while I have no right to marry and very limited protection of my civil liberties in most states of the union; yet I'm asked to fund insurance for other folks' kids.

I'll make you a deal, if your kids promise to care for me in my old age, I'll give them non-emergency health care. Until then, take care of your own house and stay out of my pockets.

Posted by JD on September 26, 2007 8:46 AM