From George Will’s latest column:
Consider the controversy over the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program, which is up for renewal. Most Republicans favor extending it.
Almost all Democrats, and some Republicans, favor expanding it in a way
that transforms it.SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the
working poor." Everyone agrees that it is for "low-income" people.
Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president’s veto
tomorrow, states could extend eligibility to households earning
$61,950. But America’s median household income is $48,201. How can
people above the median income be eligible for a program serving
lower-income people?Politics often operates on the Humpty Dumpty Rule (in "Through the Looking Glass," he says, "When I
use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor
less"). But the people currently preening about their compassion should
have some for the English language.
And this beauty:
Many politicians pander, as Edwards does with gusto, to Americans’
current penchant for self-pity. Hence the incessant talk about "the
forgotten middle class." Because such talk is incessant, it of course
refutes itself.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 3 comments }
my kid notes that if ANYONE has "forgotten" the middle class, then it is, at least in that sense, "forgotten".
It's like the reverse Lake Woebegone effect — the women are weak, the men are poor, and everyone is below average.
Recall Director's Law (after U of Chicago Prof Aaron Director): programs are made for the primary benefit of the middle class, with the tax burden on the rich or the poor (or some combination of rich and poor, but not middle class).