Speaking of Orwellian phrases, “compassionate conservatism” was touted early on to assist Dubya’s climb to power. Say it again: compassionate conservatism. What does it mean? Who benefits from it? Think I’ll skip Wikipedia this time.
A Boston Globe editorial today spells it out very clearly; in the Bush Administration, compassionate conservatism has meant among other things vetoeing the extension of the state Children's Health Insurance Program (S-Chip) and just this week, vetoeing the spending bill for the departments of labor, education, and health and human services.
The editorial cites a report by the Globe’s Alice Dembner on proposed Medicaid cuts; the Bush administration wants to reduce spending on rehabilitation for people with disabilities, services for schoolchildren with special needs, and hospital outpatient services for all Medicaid recipients.
The editorial also notes that Congress has put a moratorium on a Bush proposal to cut funds for medical education and concludes that “Lawmakers need to do whatever they can to save the other healthcare programs during the remainder of the Bush administration. Only 14 months to go.”
That is to say those among us who are hurting the most can’t survive much more of Dubya’s compassionate conservatism.