PAUL KRUGMAN: A Socialist Plot
New York Times
via Pottersville
Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.
They’d have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren’t available, many families would pay for private schools instead.
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
O.K., in case you’re wondering, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled “The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door,” is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will “displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage.”
And Rudy Giuliani’s call for “free-market solutions, not socialist models” was about health care, not education.
(Continued here.)
via Pottersville
Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.
They’d have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren’t available, many families would pay for private schools instead.
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
O.K., in case you’re wondering, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled “The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door,” is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will “displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage.”
And Rudy Giuliani’s call for “free-market solutions, not socialist models” was about health care, not education.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
3 Comments:
Great Krugman post (as usual.)
I sure am glad that I live in Minnesota where the State Constitution includes the responsiblity of the Goverment to provide education for ALL children and hence the state's future workers and taxpayers.
Have you seen the smear ads attacking Tim Walz and other Democrats for thier support of SCHIP / CHAMP ? Tuesday's Mankato Free Press had a full page color ad bemoaning the cuts in Medicare. (read more here : http://www.bluestemprairie.com/a_bluestem_prairie/2007/08/walz-targeted-o.html ) Just a little misleading.
I believe the proposed legislation does NOT cut any funds to the lower cost, more efficient, traditional government Medicare plan that the vast majority of seniors use BUT does cut the Medicare Advantage which Paul Krugmen describes in his August 1st column, as a "privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare." Medicare Advantage was created by Bush in the passage of the Prescription Part D (Drug) and we can thank former Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy for his deciding vote to give it the one vote margin of victory. (Gutknecht voted against it)
What we have here is a smear campaign against Walz and the Democrats. The bill was primarily a party-based vote with 3 Republican rollovers including Chris Shays of CT. Why would the Republicans vote against this bill ... not because of the desire to eliminate funding cuts for Medicare Advantage, but instead because the legislation including coverage for insurance for children of the working poor. Congressional Republicans do not want any expansion of insurance coverage yet people like Tim Pawlenty and other state Governors recognize the need for SCHIPS.
It is my understanding that the legislation has many positive aspects :
• Reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 million children and provides 5 million more low-income children with health coverage – a total of 11 million children.
• Ensures seniors continue to have access to the doctors of their choice by stopping a 10% payment cut to doctors.
• Encourages seniors to seek preventive health benefits by eliminating co-payments and deductibles.
• Protects low-income seniors by expanding and improving programs to ensure Medicare remains affordable for those with lower incomes.
• Ensure seniors in rural areas continue to have access to Medicare and the doctors they trust.
• Shores up Medicare's finances by extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by two years
Smear and deceive is the objective here ... the Nursing Home Industry just wants to ensure (or should I say insure) their continued payment levels.
Congress is taking Good Action here addressing a problem, yet the smear campaign will ensure that Congress's ratings stay in the 18% favorable range.
This is a very good analysis. I too have been wondering about those ads. Your discussion below fleshes them out nicely. Thanks for the enlightenment!
The State can't force anyone to get educated, even the dear little children. As a worker and taxpayer, I wish I didn't have to provide public education to everyone whether they want it or not. More funding never translates into better educated kids period. Responsible parents, teachers, neighbors and friends do.
If the Government ever "officially" gets into the health care business, after getting ill with disgust, I will make sure to never get sick again.
What makes anyone honestly think the goverment can still run an effective public education or oversee a successful comprehensive healthcare system??? Answer: Just those "public servants" who's aim is to be rich and powerful through Socialistic growth of government and their enablers.
Fortunately, The Free Press can't censor a paid ad unlike MSNBC has done. Even the "lefties" in the newsroom need the sales department to provide them their meager incomes.
Is it too much to ask that we moderates, Libertarians and Conservatives get a token effort of balance every so often VV? Throw us a bone here.
Post a Comment
<< Home