The New Poor
Let me get this right out in front. I detest what the Democrats did in putting the Frost family out as a target in a political debate. It shows an utter contempt for the people they purport to be the champions of. I posted my very snarky response to the whole situation knowing full well that some elements on the left would go bonkers over it. Some facts: My wife and I are both professionals. We have both worked long and hard and have raised (or are raising) four children. We have health insurance, which we pay for, through my wife's job. (Her company has a good plan, but it is part of her compensation for her employment – it is not "free".) We are allowed to live in our home as long as we pay the hefty mortgage every month. And we do not own as much in assets as the Frost family. Our kids go to public schools, not private ones (subsidized or not).
The left has – after more than a day now – managed to coordinate a response to the asinine position the Democrats put them into on this. Now they are howling that the right is "smearing" 12-year olds. Bull. The Democrats set that poor family up like bowling pins – and they knew it. Mark Steyn:
Sorry, no sale. The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it's incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you're welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets.
But one thing is clear by now: Whatever the truth about this boy's private school, his family home, his father's commercial property, etc, the Frosts are a very particular situation and do not illustrate any social generality – and certainly not one that makes the case for an expensive expansive all-but universal entitlement.
No, the Frost family is not "average" and the Democrats set them up to be savaged. They knew it, they did it on purpose and they are hoping the voters will ignore the details and feel pity for the Democrat's victims – and blame the Republicans. Which shows the contempt the Democrats have for the average voter.
The Democrats are trying to paint anyone who opposes their scheme as being "against the children." Bull. Nobody who opposes the vast expansion of SCHIP is against giving aid to those who really need it. The argument is over where the line is drawn. But the Democrats willfully sent a little boy in to take the heat for them. Who is really against the children here? And what party is setting a family up to be savaged in a partisan debate?
UPDATE: Joe, you're wrong here. I honestly do not think anyone is trying to "take the kid out." He was thrown out as a sacrificial lamb by the Democrats here – you're giving them a complete pass on this – you should not. I asked in my original post about this whole mess:
This is a blatant fraud by the Democrats and easily checked. So why in the world did they do this?
I think the answer is obvious – they hoped to evoke a response. They did. But the Democrats set that family up knowing they would be pummeled over this. Steyn is right here: "And, if the Democrats don't like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case."
It is not the right looking "mean-spirited", it is the left looking manipulative. Don't give them a pass, Joe. That will only make it worse.
By Quilly Mammoth, October 8, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
As a Dad I feel so sorry for Little Graeme. As a Dad who does what Frost does I would like to punch him in the nose. He isn’t getting a damn thing by me. As the hackneyed expression says…been there done that.
He set his kid up to be used. _He_ used his child for whatever promises he was given. Halsey Frost is a jerk.
By Donna, October 9, 2007 @ 8:29 am
“…… the Democrats set them up to be savaged.”
I think someone just backhandedly admitted to the existence of his peer-group’s savagery.
By Jim S, October 9, 2007 @ 8:31 am
What does it say about the poster that he unquestioningly, blindly follows the side of this debate that he does, knowing that his fellow conservatives would savage the family of a child, spokesperson or not. That they would lie is ok with him. That they would stalk the family is perfectly fine. It’s all the family’s fault. It’s all the Democrats’ fault. Republicans never do anything wrong so long as they mouth the correct “conservative” platitudes. He criticizes Joe for supposedly giving the Democrats a pass even as he does the exact same thing for the opposite side.
Frankly, everything about your post only proves the points of the critics of the Republican response. Compassion and telling the truth are alien concepts for some conservatives.
By quilly mammoth, October 9, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Yeah, Donna, pretty much when someone lies to put the Government’s Boot even harder on to my neck I start thinking a bit savagely. At the risk of a Tex Antione moment: I suppose you’re the type of person who says “when rape is inevitable lay back and enjoy it”?
In your POV the kid and his parents are untouchable, regardless of the circumstances.
That’s great logic, set up Tiny Graeme to be the object of scorn and rebuttal and when he suffers the inevitable response castigate the people who do it. Another lesson the Democrats have learned from the Palestinians.
By markg8, October 9, 2007 @ 9:33 am
This is ridiculous. Wild inaccurate suppositions presented as fact about the kid’s family’s finances and lifestyle are ok by you?
Both sides have trotted out children to make a point. A couple of examples are Bush flying a 9 year old around the country who wanted to abolish Social Security and in a particularly disgusting example NRCC head Tom Reynolds holding a press conference last fall surrounded by a bunch of little kids and using them as an excuse to not answer any questions about Mark Foley.
I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself Gaius but you’ve done such a good job of making yourself of caricature of the right
why bother?
By cfaller96, October 9, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Gaius, they can’t afford private insurance. My previous comment pointing that out was removed (perhaps because it included a link proving that), but it’s an important point that is purposefully being ignored. This is what SCHIP is about- providing health insurance to children whose families can’t afford it on their own but also don’t qualify for Medicaid. Why is this a bad thing, and if this is so bad, why do so many Republicans (including famously lefty) support it?
These children and these families are real. I know it would be easier for you to insist that anyone who uses this program is “gaming” the system, but that’s simply not true. Some people are too poor to afford private insurance, yet are too rich for Medicaid. And we’re only talking about helping their children. Just because you and your family might not benefit from it does not make it useless or wasteful. Not everyone is just like you.
I don’t know what to say about people who condone lying in order to criticize/attack kids that are recovering from a serious accident. I really just don’t know how to reach out to people like you.
By Gaius, October 9, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
They made choices as to where to work and as to where to put their money.
But it is not about them. It is about expanding a program using a regressive tax that impacts those least able to afford it.
The rest is diversionary. Nobody is arguing against the children getting help if they really need it, despite the howls. Bush offered an increase – just not the huge one.
In some states close to half the money already goes to adults – not children. See Captain’s Quarters.
By cfaller96, October 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
You consider a tax on cigarrette consumption to be “regressive?” You’d rather protect (presumably adult) smokers from extra taxes, at the expense of children needing health insurance? Wow.
By “choices”, what do you mean, exactly? For a family of 6 earning an income of $45K a year, what “choices” do they have? Your statement about “choices” ignores the reality of debilitatingly expensive health insurance. They couldn’t afford it before the accident, and they sure as heck can’t get insurance now.
By “choices” do you mean that the family should sell their $160K property, move into a cheaper (and most likely smaller) home…all so they can get just a little bit of health insurance? You honestly believe hocking yourself into debt for some health care is a viable “choice?” You were noticeably pointed in your criticism, but vague in your suggestions. Huh.
Or by “choices” do you mean that an adult that chooses to smoke leaves himself/herself open to consumption taxes, because that choice is unhealthy? No, no, that choice is ok, I guess.
Perhaps you really believe that “nobody is arguing against the children getting help if they really need it,” but it doesn’t look like that to me. Lies were spread about this family. If those lies weren’t spread in an effort to discredit the SCHIP program and its supporters, then to what end were the lies spread? Was it just for sport?
People are arguing against getting the children help if they need it- that’s exactly what the veto did, and that’s exactly what supporting the veto does. It’s all well and good to take a “high-minded” approach to governance theory, but at the end of the day, programs (and vetos of programs) affect real people on the ground.
Some people just don’t want to admit that. When confronted with the harsh, up-close, personal reality of their beliefs, some people would rather not accept responsibility for the impact of their beliefs on other people. Some people would rather live in the fantasyland that ‘the Frosts didn’t really need the help and shame on them blah blah blah.’
I don’t think those people should be in charge of our government ever again.
By Arlo, October 9, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
At the end of the day, I hope the SCHIP program forces the states to include an asset test. Where does it end? I know people in their late 50’s who keep working in order to have health insurance. If all they had to do was show their INCOME to get on a government program for free or very subsidized insurance, they’d retire.
How do 2 college graduates manage to keep their income at $45,000 in a big metropolitan area?
Several of the blogs linked to a wedding announcement in the NY Times in the early 90’s. That was before the Times changed its policy and accepted paid wedding announcements. http://weddings.about.com/b/a/142007.htm
To get their wedding announcement in the NY Times in 1992 they had to be from prominent families, or at least one of them was. Makes you wonder if Mr. Frost’s business isn’t more of a hobby and his parents are gifting them tens of thousands a year that doesn’t even have to be reported for SCHIP elegibiity.
By Gaius, October 9, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Very disingenuous, cfaller. Completely ignore the fact that they have more assets than do the poor you purport to care about. Disregard the fact that smokers tend to be statistically much more likely to be from the lower economic rungs. You want to tax the poorer to give to the richer. Reverse Robin Hood.
New York had a means test, at least when my mother was dying. She was only allowed a few thousand in assets to qualify for aid. She worked her whole life as a secretary or in that level of job. When she died everything she owned fit into a couple of boxes.
By quilly mammoth, October 9, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
They can’t afford health insurance? That’s their choice. Just like, apparently, they decided not to have their children in car seats when they had that accident (9 year old son thrown for example). Like they decided to have the careers they have, the Suburban they have and the remodel they did.
They are making choices that leave then unable to afford health insurance and that’s _my job_ to pay for it?
BULL!
The Democrats made an unwise choice picking the Frosts. I’m sure their were other people who truly need help. But none so evocative as the image of Tiny Graeme, eh?
By Arlo, October 9, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Medicaid asset test is something like $2,000 in cash and a prepaid funeral. States are required to “recover” after recipient dies, usually forcing a house sale. Rules are pretty strict about how family can supplement a Medicaid beneficiary’s income, too.
How much of the Frost $45,000 income is from investments, I wonder? It might be all of it and the rent he gets from renting part of his commercial building pays expenses on the building.
We just don’t know but theres no reason to think that Frost is putting in a 40 hour week at his business.
By Justin K., October 9, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Wow. Talk about moral midgetry here. The Democrats did what politicians of all sides have done since time immemorial, used a child’s story to put a human face on an issue. As noted above, the GOP does this all the time too (see Bush’s Social Security mascot, “snowflake babies,” etc), and there’s nothing particularly unusual or inappropriate about it. This whole “they put the kid in the public eye, so he’s fair game and its their fault” dodge is feeble and disgusting. Abraham Lincoln compared this kind moral cowardice to a highwayman who holds a gun to your head and says “stand and deliver or you will murder yourself.” Malkin and the other thugs harrassing the Frosts and spreading lies about them (as they’ve done with countless other folks who’ve challenged Bush in public) bear full responsibiliy for their actions. Claiming otherwise is just craven.
And Gaius, I know you’ve been told this repeatedly, but Maryland DOES have a means test for S-CHIP and the Frosts passed. If you think the income threshold for the test should be lower make a case for it, but don’t pretend this family is somehow loaded. Even people with steady incomes who own businesses and homes can be wiped out by helth care expenses, as the Frosts would have been w/o S-CHIP. All of you hardhearts crowing about choices need to remember that no one is immune to misfortune. You or someone you love could be in an accident, through no fault of your own, and wind up wounded and financially destroyed. Even if you have insurance, your policy might not hold up when you need it. Think about that before you take health care away from kids.
By Gaius, October 9, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Maryland has an income limit – no means test.
http://statecoverage.net/profiles/maryland.htm
By Justin K., October 9, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
And the Frosts were under the limit. You’re just hair-splitting here.
Shorter Gaius (standing by my smashed up car with baseball bat): I wholeheartedly decry what you put this poor car through by parking it in your driveway.
By Gaius, October 9, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
No, as the term is most often used it includes assets, not just income. Maryland does not use that – as you are aware.
By Justin K., October 9, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
So what? The state of Maryland decided how they would administer the program and the Frosts qualified. They used a benefit legally available to them to get medical coverage they could not otherwise afford. It’s no secret that even middle class folks often can’t afford health coverage. I’d do the same in their situation. Maybe you wouldn’t, and that’s fine, but I fail to see what the Frosts did wrong, and how the harassment they’re facing from the likes of you is somehow the Democrats’ fault.
You think the income limit should be lower? Fine, make a case, but stop pretending the Frosts were something they’re not.
Conservatives will do anything to avoid actually having an argument on the merits. They’d rather screech about a newspaper ad than face the mess in Iraq and will harrass and slander a hardworking family rather than defend their desire to deny health coverage to kids. It’s cowardly and sad.
Shorter Gaius (robbing my grandmother at gunpoint): I wholeheartedly decry what you did to this poor woman by bringing her down this street.
By Gaius, October 9, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Shortest Gaius. That’s enough.
By volgirl, October 13, 2007 @ 9:23 am
I am a single mother of two making right around 30k per year. i do not own my home. i own one car. i pay for health insurance for myself and my children. i make too much money to qualify for state funded health care.
there are things kids have to have whether they are sick or not. what did this family do about well checks for their kids? vaccinations? what about when they got sick? how can you have kids and opt not to have health insurance, but go ahead and purchase a third vehicle? who cares if little tommy breaks his finger in football practice, we’ve got a third car… that is irresponsible parenting.
the kids should not have to suffer, true enough, but at this point they are not suffering! they have the schip program and it obviously does work for a family in this situation, while i am taking about a 200.00 a month deduction in my pay so that i can have health insurance for my children.
because of my sitation i see blaring hypocrisy as far as who is eligible for what and who is considered the working poor. i work full time, my kids are in pubic schools, i qualify for nothing and i manage to make it. no one opposes this program if it is going to people who actually need it but to give it to people who CHOSE not to take responsibility on their own, and who CHOSE to have an extra vehicle but didn’t feel their kids needed health insurance is a bit of a slap in the face to people who pay for their insurance even if it does set them back some.