I can’t repeat everything I’ve said already in every blog post.

As for me favoring means-testing–actually, it’s the opponents of SCHIP who are really pushing us down that road. Check out this post:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/busybodies/

I’m no scholar of the Gospels, but I wonder if you’re missing the point. Jesus called on each of us to pay for those less fortunate, not to vote for government to confiscate others’ money to achieve that end.

(I suspect that in the Gospel According to Frank, the first beatitude would be, “Blessed are the bureaucrats, for they are the means-testers of God.” But that line is noticeably absent in matthew, mark, luke and john.)

Incidentally, if you really buy the rule that we should never allow children to suffer on account of their parents, then do you oppose partial birth abortion in all cases, including pregnancies caused by rape and incest? That strikes me as a pretty extreme position, but by your rule it is unavoidable.

For Adam: I don’t know of many anecdotes of lower middle class or poor people being denied attendance at the church of their choice . . . or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for church.

Finally, here’s Krugman commenting on a policy stance that would visit the mistakes of parents on their children:

“I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.”

To come back to Nozick: the fundamental flaw with high libertarian theory is that we’re never able to start from scratch, to set a fair initial distribution of entitlements which should then only be constrained by justice in transfers and justice in rectification. It is very difficult for me to understand why any child deserves to lack health care.

That’s curious logic. I suppose you’re conceding that Jesus would be anti-First-Amendment: After all, if Jesus wants us to worship God, then he also wants government to pay for it.

Is he suggesting that Jesus was a tax collector? Because I can think of a Bible passage or two that would suggest otherwise.

There is no rational basis to invoke any government entitlement program, or any compulsory tax that finances one, as “proper Christian policy.”

“Doing good works” is not the moral equivalent of “forcing your neighbor to pay for them.” No true Christian has difficulty with this basic concept.

It is mind-boggling to me to think that there are self-professed “Christians” who consider it a “Christian” virtue to force other people to be “Christian.” It’s offensive when the conservative theocrats do it, and it’s no less offensive when liberal theocrats do it.

The conservative theocrats put “God” on the money in our wallets. The liberal theocrats now want to put “God” on the tax bill that pulls the money out of our wallets. While both insolently claim the moral high ground.

Bottom Line: There is no cognizable difference between Shavar Jeffries and James Dobson.

A pox on both their churches.