Hiding Behind the
Children
Pete du Pont
Former Governor of Delaware, is Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy
Analysis
|
Maybe the Third Big Lie, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help
you," should be amended to "I'm from the government and I'm here to help the children."
Lately, whenever bureaucrats or lawmakers want to intrude further into the life of
the American family or increase the size of government, invariably we are told "it's
for the children."
It's a good sales pitch. Who does not want our children to be safe, physically and
mentally healthy, and well educated?
So, for example, Administrator Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection
Agency wants to tighten the standards for particulate matter and ozone in the air - that's
basically soot and smog - and assures us that the increase in asthma among children is a
major reason.
Congress has voted to spend $24 billion over five years to provide health insurance
to more uninsured children from low-income families - because, we are told, the number
of uninsured children is growing rapidly. Both President and Mrs. Clinton assure us that
there is a child care crisis, and the president proposes spending about $21.7 billion for
more state regulation of day care and for state child-care subsidies.
The "for the children" agenda gets lots of support from advocacy
groups that, like the president, have learned to couch their philosophical goals in warm,
fuzzy terms. Even their names - like Children's Defense Fund and Families USA -
connote loving care in the bosom of the family.
But just saying it's for the children doesn't make it so. Wasn't it "for the
children" that Janet Reno authorized the government attack on the Branch Davidian
compound at Waco?
So, when examined more closely, the "for the children" argument for
stricter clean air standards collapses under the facts. The National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases has found that the leading cause of asthma among children is an
allergic reaction to cockroach droppings and carcasses. Higher after-tax household
income would help the children more than cracking down on ozone levels.
As for the argument about spending more on health insurance for children, it is
based on a false premise. Rather than skyrocketing, the percentage of uninsured children
has been about the same for the past decade, although it has risen slightly since Clinton
took office. Further, the government already has a health insurance program for low-
income children - Medicaid - and about three million of those who are eligible have
never joined the program.
A child care crisis? Only about one in 10 preschoolers is in formal day care, and
the Department of Health and Human Services found that 96 percent of all parents were
"satisfied" or "highly satisfied" with their child care arrangements,
as were 95 percent of families with incomes under $15,000 a year. But the Clintons are
concerned because they say day care is not sufficiently regulated.
Considering most of the proposals emanating from Washington "for the
children," instead of applauding we would be better advised to put our hands on our
wallets.
The biggest problem with all this government help for children is that most families
are already getting more help from the government than they can afford. This is
particularly true of many lower middle-income families with children - people earning
just enough to price them out of eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Both adults
are working outside the home, not to improve their standard of living but because one
adult's entire earnings go to taxes.
The average family of four today pays almost one-quarter of its income in federal
taxes, compared to three percent in 1950. Does that tell you anything about why there are
more two-income families today? When you add state and local taxes, today's average
family pays 38 percent of its income to taxes. And that's only considering direct taxes.
Bear in mind that the family pays indirect taxes on everything it buys -food, clothing,
gasoline, everything - because of the additional taxes for labor and materials necessarily
built into its price.
If our lawmakers and the president really want to help the children, they could
begin by dramatically reducing spending, not increasing it, and then they could cut the
taxes that are forcing a lot of spouses to work when they'd rather be home with the kids.
Home |
Support Us |
All Issues |
Social Security
Debate Central |
Contact Us
|
