S-CHIP and The Dream Act -- It's All About The Kids

One of the great contributions of the Clinton Administration (perhaps the greatest) to the revival of the "progressive" agenda is to label previously-unpopular initiatives as being for the benefit of "children", thus pricking the conscience of the youth obsessed (and increasingly childless) white middle class and mostly put the conservatives (who, after all, are the proponents of "family values") on the defensive. This "camel's foot into the tent" tactic allows the gradual introduction of programs and the setting of precedents for them; every expansion is just a little step (naturally, also for the benefit of the "children").

S-CHIP and the "Dream Act" are two classic examples. For S-CHIP, after introducing the program, naturally we must increase the covered class for the "health of the children" (WHO could be against that?) and, "oh by the way" we need to cover their parents. It wouldn't do to have the parents of the "children" die prematurely and leave them orphans (Bush put a stop to that, at least). Next would have been their adult guardians, etc. etc. The aim, of course is to have Government financed and run health care for all. If that is the goal (and it may be a good goal, any way), "progressives" should have the courage of their convictions and SAY what they are trying to achieve, even if their plan is to do it in an orderly manner, in stages. Just have a plan and SAY IT, and let the country decide.

The "Dream Act" is another effort in the "progressive" agenda to wipe out any limitation on immigration, especially of the poor and "people of color" to hasten the arrival of the Liberal Nirvana , a "majority minority country" - and, incidentally, to increase their electoral base. Next would have been the granting of amnesty for the parents of the "dream kids"; after all, would we be so heartless as to leave these poor kids all alone in this big cruel country, separated from their kin?

Liberals: Have the courage of your convictions.