What can I say -- even when the New York Times explicitly concedes the legitimacy of the President's position on an issue, it still feels it necessary to delegitimize that position.

I mean, consider this in today's editorial on the SCHIP program and the new regulations put into place by the President.

There is a legitimate argument to be had over how far up the income scale the federal-state partnership known as the State ChildrenÂ’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, should climb. When it was created, the program focused on children whose family incomes were no higher than twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 today for a family of four. The goal was to cover the near-poor, who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance.

After all, who can argue with the notion that those intended to be helped by the program should be effectively served before it is expanded to cover others -- especially when the new "market" is the upper middle class, including families making over $82,000 a year (also called "the rich" by the NYT editors when they get a tax cut)?

Well, the New York Times, that's who!

Yet the Bush administration wants to return to a darker age. Its letter to state officials seems intent on virtually eliminating such coverage for middle-income children, or at least drastically reducing it.

In other words, the position advocated by the President (making sure the program fulfills its primary mission) is legitimate, but not legitimate because it is advocated by the President.

It must be so easy to be a part of th NYT editorial staff. You just need to see what W is doing and declare it illegitimate.

Posted by: Greg at 07:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.