Dumb or Disingenuous

Too Clever by Half?

Something really troubling is starting to emerge about President Obama. His campaign for the bill to socialise health care in the United States is showing him up either to be ignorant or untruthful.

Firstly, there is the matter of whether the proposed bill(s) providing unlimited federal funding for abortions, and the forced payment for those federal funds for abortions through insurance premiums.

Obama has already gone on record some time ago stating that he intended that federal funding of abortions was an intrinsic part of the package. Now, however, he has come out saying that the allegation that his health care bill would mean federal funding of abortions was "untrue" and a "fabrication". So, which Obama is telling the truth?

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), responded to the President's claim that it was untrue:

Emboldened by the recently demonstrated superficiality of some organs of the news media, President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component of the health care legislation that his congressional allies and staff have crafted.

As amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30 (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions. Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums. But these are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies. The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions — this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion.

In 2007 Obama explicitly pledged to Planned Parenthood that the public plan will cover abortions. Some journalists have reported that Obama "backed off" of this commitment in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, broadcast July 21, but Obama actually carefully avoided stating his intentions — instead, he simply made an artful observation that "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care."

It is true that there is such a tradition — which Obama has always opposed, and which the Obama-backed bill would shatter. (Emphasis, ours)

This appears to be very disingenous on the part of Obama. He denies federal funding for abortions as an untruth, yet there is de facto federal funding through another mechanism--compulsory loading into federal health insurance premiums. Either he knows this, and is lying; or, he is ignorant.

Bloomberg reporter, Caroline Baum has nailed him appearing to use precisely the same modus operandi.

Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.

For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:

“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”

Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?
Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.

Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com, put it this way in an Aug. 13 commentary on Mises.org:

“The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government’s involvement at all.” . . .

Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.

The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

If Obama gets exposed as a liar to the American public over legislation he will have committed the unpardonable sin. It is possible he will end up being the most disappointing and unpopular president within living memory.

Ah, well. No doubt he can patch it all up by telling us it was a "teaching moment" and inviting America to have a beer with him in the Rose Garden.