The White House, Morality and Fiscal Responsibility

--by Mike Adams

According to the NY Times Article U.S. Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants by SARAH KERSHAW, under the GW Bush administration, Medicaid has been crippled in it's ability to provide many kinds of vital health care for immigrants. Not only are illegal immigrants being culled out of our population, legal student immigrants are being denied various life saving treatments as well. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is that the US born children of immigrants are being targeted for health care denial. The explanation is that full medicaid is available only to US citizens...this confuses me, because I was under the impression that anyone born in the US is automatically considered a US citizen.

Somehow, the situation makes me think of Bush's platform as a "Compassionate Conservative." It never really made any sense to me. I wasn't sure what he meant by that statement. After watching his actions in office, I have to assume that it means he experiences a deep and overwhelming compassion for the needs of corporate America to profit while a the same time, experiencing a deep and overwhelming level of conservatism with regards to helping the most vulnerable people in our society to survive and have lives worth living.

I am reminded of W's position with regards to Terri Schiavo. I distinctly remember Mr. Bush weighing in on the topic in March of 2005 by stating that, "it is wise to always err on the side of life" It was Mr. Bush's position that the US Congress should intervene on behalf of Mrs. Shiavo's parents who wanted to keep Terri's body alive by any medical means necessary.

Mr. Bush's position on that issue seems to be in sharp contrast to his position with regards to Medicaid. The Bush administration has ordered extensive audits of Medicaid services and they are systematically denying immigrants the ability to receive vital health services like chemotherapy, one is left to assume that Mr. Bush was being rather insincere with regards to always erring on the side of life. I wonder if perhaps what Bush meant was that it is always wise to err on the side of life when the voting public is paying attention...otherwise, it is better to err on the side of profit.

A quick look at Mr. Bush's record seems to point at an ongoing effort to mislead the American voting public into believing that he is on our side. Take for example W's current showdown with congress. Mr. Bush has preemptively threatened to veto any increased funding for veterans, health care, medical research, education, law enforcement and public works. He claims to be pushing congress for fiscal responsibility.

The man who led a massive misinformation campaign in order to deceive the American public and gain support for an unnecessary war, which every year, costs US Taxpayers almost six times as much money as the philanthropic benefits being championed by Congressional Democrats. The man who took a balanced budget and created the highest deficit in US Government history. The man who led the US while unemployment and energy costs soared to new heights. This man, GW Bush now wants to claim leadership in the realm of fiscal responsibility.

While his assertions are amusing, they are hardly worth consideration as a serious source of leadership. There is no shred of evidence that GW has any practical experience with fiscal responsibility or with compassion. It seems clear that he is NO fiscal or a moral leader for our times unless of course our goal is to become bankrupt in both the fiscal and the moral sense.