The understanding of the type of limits placed on government by the Constitution is non-existent from the President right down to the man on the street. The majority think that the government should be in the insurance business and when President Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill the hue and cry of unfair began with full force. Two letters to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette Voices column serve to point out the lack of knowledge of the Constitution and with the insistence that Bush was wrong to veto the bill, it maybe be an indication of greed, in that the writers wanted others to foot the bill for health coverage.

First the letter of October 6, 2007 will be examined. Trey Huffty of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, is in a huff because of the veto and demands that congress override the veto. Two questions must be asked of Mr. Huffty, but it will be asked later in the article, and the answer to the question will also answer the reason the veto was correct but done for the wrong reason.

A letter with convoluted thinking, written by Lee Van Allen, Rogers, Arkansas, appeared on Sunday, 10-07-2007, and expresses the same theme but with a twist that defies logic and reason. He disputes the idea that more taxes on cigarettes will bring in less money since few people will quit smoking due to the tax increase. (He doesn’t understand the economic law that the more a product or service is taxed, the less the revenue will be from the taxes.)  Then his logic really gets weird. He claims that if there is a huge drop in smokers, the tax revenues will actually increase. He says that the health costs due to smoking will decrease and therefore the money will increase. That is some kind of convoluted less is more logic and it makes no sense. How can revenues increase if the taxes aren’t being paid?

He tries to make it sensible by writing that lower taxes have increased tax revenues for the government which is true. However, the reason is the expansion of business and commerce which generates the flow of money and thereby increases the tax take at all levels. Whereas the higher taxes on smoking products lessens the use, the tax take will be lower since the sales can’t expand because there isn’t anyway to expand the market, as is the case with lower taxes on individuals which puts more money in circulation.

It is plain that the two writers and many more citizens expect the government to pay health insurance costs for the populace. Now to the first question for the two writers and the answer which will reveal why the veto was for the wrong reason. Where in the Constitution is the provision for the government to provide health care for anyone, veterans and families being the exception? The answer is there isn’t any such provision and that is the sole reason he should have used for the veto, not that it was more money than he wanted to spend and that it covered adults up to age 25 and people with incomes in the 80,000 dollar per year range. At least for now, the veto means less money for the government and more money in the pockets of the taxpayers. That is the best less is more logic and the politicians should practice it more than they do.

Many of those who don’t like the veto complain that millions of kids were taken off the insurance rolls by the President’s action. The fact is that they weren’t on it to begin with so they weren’t removed. (The president noted that his administration has added more than 2 million children to the SCHIP rolls since 2001.)

 Yet, at the same time millions have been removed from the tax rolls and that only increases the burden on those who pay. With an eventual increase in the number covered by insurance, the recipe for disaster isn’t too far in the future. It is foolish reasoning to believe that government can provide for more and more people with fewer and fewer paying taxes. The application of less is more here means more will be dependent on the government.

Now the second question demands an answer. Why is it the responsibility of government to provide insurance coverage for children instead of the parents doing so?  The resounding silence as is deafening as the reasoning is foolish.

© 10-07-2007 DEC

             http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bush_veto_kids_health/2007/10/06/38722.html