Saturday, October 06, 2007

Taking Candy from Babies - A Reasoned Response to the Borowitz Report

Dems Non-Negotiable Demand: “More candy for babies!”

Washington (AP) - In a move that surprised no one, Congressional Democrats delivered their rebuttal to President Bush, following his recent veto of legislation which would have greatly expanded the SCHIP program. The rebuttal took the form of the new “More Candy For Babies - Won’t Someone Please Think of the Children?! Act.”

Veteran US Senator Edward Kennedy, who introduced the bill in committee, claims the issue is clear-cut. “Either there’s more candy for babies or there is not. This is an irreducible truth, and the Administration is on the wrong side of this issue.”

Following his remarks to reporters, Senator Kennedy lay on the floor, drummed his heels, and, weeping copiously, held his breath until he turned purple and passed out. His press secretary then took over the news conference and explained that the Senator had thusly demonstrated the depth of his commitment to the “More Candy for Babies - Won’t Someone Please Think of the Children?! Act.”

“This commitment is absolute,” said the secretary, “regardless of the fiscal, medical or familial consequences of its eventual implementation.”

The American Dental Association, a notoriously conservative lobbying force to be reckoned with on K Street, promptly denounced the Act as a plot to destroy the teeth of infants, even as they grew in. “This is nuts,” stated Spokesman Fred Ansburger. “Are they trying to kill the kid, or just rot his teeth? It’s kinda hard to tell.”

The ADA statement inspired a New York Times editorial in defense of the Act. The piece took to task the ADA, declaring, “Never have we seen such craven service to professional self-interest. The equation is simple: no baby teeth, no expensive baby teeth care, so letting them ‘rot’ even as they grow in may be translated to ‘No more baby teeth care for us to overcharge hardworking American families for.

“The ADA should be ashamed of itself for putting profit and greed ahead of the overwhelming interests of American babies,” concluded the piece.

Families polled on the issue seemed confused. “Can we like, sell the candy and buy formula with it?” asked Mrs. G. Hollingsworth Elderbridge of Roanoke, VA. A close reading of the bill’s language indicates not. In fact, a subsection of the bill implies that selling free government candy for one’s infant child in order to purchase any other nutritional need could result in fines, probation and community service.

“Look, we’re saying more candy for babies is a good thing, and these parents have to just wise up and shut up,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Who knows better what’s good for a child, its semi-literate mother or members of Congress, many of whom are clever lawyers and other well-educated professionals?”

Representatives of the American Candy and Treats Association have been keeping mum on the subject, but industry insiders say many factories are preparing to gear up for the anticipated production increases.

“We figure sometime after 2009, this bill is gonna get momentum that will be pretty much unstoppable,” said one source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Besides, who does this president think he is, taking candy from babies?!? What’s wrong with someone who would do such a thing? I mean, for heaven’s sake, won’t someone please think of the children?!?”