According to the Daily News, the popular televangelist said it was OK to divorce a spouse who was suffering with Alzheimer’s, subject to certain conditions. “’I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again – but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her,’ Robertson said.” Now one can debate the ethics of this on several levels, not the least from the point of view of the Gospels, since opposition to divorce is one of the few moral absolutes directly attributed to Jesus. But Robertson is best known not for his philosophical views, but for his political views. His view that God wants taxes to be lower, and public aid to the needy to be diminished. Who, then, is it that foots the bill for custodial care when a spouse refuses to do so?
Medicaid. Divorce is often a part of Medicaid planning, accessing a program purportedly intended for the poor while not actually being or becoming poor. In fact, the taxpayer burden of the custodial care of those who did not make sacrificing for family a priority in healthy adulthood – who went through divorces or became absent parents during their children’s childhood – is one of the most difficult issues we face going forward. What will happen when those children say sorry, but you put yourself first when I needed you, and I’m struggling now, so don’t expect me to diminish my life if great sacrifices are required to ease your later years? Even in New York, where rules have been in place to allow cost shifting to the government without the formality of divorce, this is now recognized – even by many Democrats — as a financial burden this high tax state cannot afford.
There is a reasonable argument that can be had about how much in public services, benefits and guarantees people in general should expect, and how much they should be required to pay for them in taxes. That, however, is an argument that never occurs. Instead we have different rules for different people. I suspect that so-called “liberal” Democrats would be willing to settle for a lot less in public services and benefits if they actually expected to have to pay for them, rather than having someone else or future generations pay for them. And this confirms that so-called “conservative” Republicans would be in favor of much more in public services and benefits if reductions affected themselves, and not just someone else or future generations.
I wonder where Robertson stands on the senior friendly Republican policy that no matter how much it costs, and no matter how much must be borrowed, every old age benefit that his generation has promised itself but was unwilling to pay for (an unwillingness expressed by voting for Republicans promising tax cuts) must be provided without limit or restraint. Taxes must not be raised to pay for it. And old-age benefits must be taken away from those 54 and younger, to assure our creditors that even as they suffer future deprivation in old age federal taxes will be used to pay off the debts Generation Greed ran up.