Meaning: This quote by journalist David Broder addresses the issue of priorities in government policy, particularly in relation to tax and social welfare. Broder's statement suggests that there is a fundamental problem with prioritizing the elimination of the dividend tax over addressing the needs of millions of children. The quote reflects a concern about the allocation of resources and the impact of policy decisions on the most vulnerable members of society.

Broder's reference to "something got screwed up in terms of your priorities" implies that a skewed sense of value and importance is at play in the decision-making process. This assertion suggests that the focus on eliminating the dividend tax, which primarily benefits investors and shareholders, takes precedence over addressing the needs of 11 million children who may be reliant on social welfare programs and support. The juxtaposition of these two priorities serves as a critique of policy decisions that favor economic interests over social welfare concerns.

The quote underscores the ethical dimension of policy-making and the moral implications of prioritizing economic measures over social welfare initiatives. By framing the issue in terms of "11 million kids," Broder emphasizes the human impact of policy choices, drawing attention to the potential consequences for the well-being of children who may be affected by the allocation of resources and the priorities set by the government.

In a broader context, this quote speaks to the ongoing debate about the role of government in addressing social inequality and providing support for vulnerable populations. It raises questions about the values that underpin policy decisions and the ethical responsibilities of policymakers to consider the needs of all members of society, especially those who are most at risk.

The reference to the dividend tax specifically highlights the intersection of economic policy and social welfare, pointing to the trade-offs and competing interests involved in shaping government priorities. The implication is that the decision to prioritize the elimination of the dividend tax reflects a set of values and priorities that may not align with broader societal concerns about equity and social justice.

Broder's quote challenges readers to consider the implications of policy choices and to critically evaluate the values that inform government decision-making. By highlighting the contrast between prioritizing tax benefits for investors and addressing the needs of millions of children, the quote invites reflection on the ethical dimensions of public policy and the potential consequences of skewed priorities.

In conclusion, David Broder's quote serves as a thought-provoking commentary on the intersection of economic policy and social welfare, raising important questions about the values that guide government decision-making. The juxtaposition of priorities related to the dividend tax and the well-being of children prompts a critical examination of the ethical considerations at stake in policymaking and the impact of policy choices on vulnerable members of society.