I haven't gotten around to describing my disappointment with Bush's speech last night, but he just reminded me, as I listen to his speech in Grand Rapids, that the difference between "compassionate conservatism" and big-government liberalism is getting harder and harder to discern.

I just heard him say that if some aspect of health care (I think that it was prescription drugs) was good enough for Congress, it was good enough for our senior citizens. Ted Kennedy made exactly the same argument back in the eighties, and the argument was just as stupid then.

Let's extend it to its natural conclusion. If chauffeur service to and from the Capitol is good enough for our Congressmen, it's good enough for our senior citizens. If free haircuts is good enough for our Congressmen, it's good enough for our senior citizens. If large staffs and offices are good enough for our Congressmen, they're good enough for our senior citizens.

A chicken in every pot, and chauffeurs, haircuts and office staff for everyone!

While I'm all in favor of cutting back on some congressional perks, that's beside the point. It's absurd to think that perquisites of office, or even benefits of employment, of elected officials should bear any relationship to government handouts to private citizens. If you think that our tax dollars should go to pay for prescription drugs for the chronologically challenged, then put forth a rational case for it, but don't expect me to give it to them just because it's part of the compensation of a Congressman.

yet one more reason why congress' pay should be cut!

actually, no one in federal service not in the military should earn more than one half of the median national wage

that should get the vultures out of there rather quickly!!!

That wasn't the interpretation I put on his "good enough" comments... He said that the american public deserved the same sort of choice and access in health care that congress has. I thought he came across as a bit of an HMO cheerleader, myself. Looked to me like he was laying the groundwork for future privatization of medicare, or at least an overhaul.

Basically, he was referring to the fact that Members of Congress have access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) which provides a choice of several fee-for-service and HMO insurance plans.

I don't know why the line isn't, "If it's good enough for civil servants, it's good enough for seniors?"

That doesn't make much sense either. Again, you're comparing an employment benefit with a benefit of simply being a (senior) citizen. It doesn't compute.

Well, we are in a war on "terror". It would be right handy to subsidize tranquilizers (ok, I'm being sarcastic...).

Maybe it's a bone thrown to the Congressional Democrats to get them to support the war. Most of them always need to be bribed to do what is necessary for the common good. I always thought that was what the George Mitchell Tax Imcrease that Bush pere signed onto was for, but Bush was way too enthusiastic about it. That was his country-club Republicanism coming out.