Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians (Part 3)

"The ability for elected officials to say things that are untrue, and I would say the ability to say one thing to one audience, and another thing to another audience has ended... There is no such thing as off the record. There is no such thing as a 'closed to press' meeting. Anybody with a cell phone can pick up the video.

"Senator Obama himself learned that when he told a fundraising group in San Francisco in March... He made some comments about people who owned guns in small communities that ended up, of course, costing us a lot of votes in rural Pennsylvania... Anything you say you should expect to be on Youtube...

"The premium for what ... I might just call being honest is much higher than it used to be: that what people could get away with even 4 years ago isn't going to happen." Anita Dunn, White House communications director for the first year of the Obama administration, speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009 event in the Dominican Republic on Obama's media tactics. (Minutes 4:40-6:32 of Youtube video)

Anita Dunn reminisces about the lost "ability for politicians to say things that are untrue" or more precisely, "to say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience." What? Politicians lie?

Dunn acknowledges a premium for a politician speaking truthfully. Robert Reich (D) alluded to the same phenomenon in his September 26, 2007 speech at Berkeley, where he listed the goals of government-run healthcare.

According to Dunn, politicians can't "get away with" being honest about their goals any more. She even notes how her politician, Obama (D), unfortunately found he could no longer speak so truthfully in public settings. In Obama's case, he revealed his distaste for small town gun owners and people who "cling" to religion out of frustration (Youtube video).

The premium to politicians for revealing the true goals of their policies to the people is that those politicians might not get to inflict their visions on anyone. To paraphrase Lincoln, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool anyone if you actually tell them the truth about your plans for them. Imitating a doctor or nurse, but on a grander scale, politicians pretend they're saving the world with their "re-forms," lying to you that "it won't hurt a bit," right until they jab the needle in. Healthcare "re-form" will hurt, but according to the politicians, it's for our own good, so it's ok for them to lie; we can thank them later.

Politicians know what's best for us--just ask them.

Obama and the Public "Option"

On August 11, 2009 in Portsmouth, N.H., in his pursuit of healthcare "re-form," the President carefully made "a distinction between a universal plan versus a single payer plan" (video):

Q: "Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years -- when you were a senator and perhaps even before then -- that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan. I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing -- because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still -- as yourself, now -- support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?"

PRESIDENT: "Well, I think it's an excellent question, so I appreciate the chance to respond. First of all, I want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things.

"A single-payer plan would be a plan like Medicare for all, or the kind of plan that they have in Canada, where basically government is the only person -- is the only entity that pays for all health care. Everybody has a government-paid-for plan, even though in, depending on which country, the doctors are still private or the hospitals might still be private. In some countries, the doctors work for the government and the hospitals are owned by the government. But the point is, is that government pays for everything, like Medicare for all. That is a single-payer plan.

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive. So what would end up happening would be, a lot of people who currently have employer-based health care would suddenly find themselves dropped, and they would have to go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet. And I would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition. All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."

The President wanted to make a distinction between a universal plan and a socialist single payer plan because he pretends that one will not lead to another. He says he is not "promoting" a single payer plan, but we do know he is "a proponent of a single payer universal healthcare plan" as he said in 2003 in this video of his speech to an AFL-CIO group during his US Senate campaign:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

As late as 2007, then Senator Obama was advocating a gradual move to a universal single-payer healthcare plan. Forty seconds into this May 2007 video of then Senator Obama during his campaign for President, he described how the US could gradually be moved to a single payer plan:

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out...”

Why do you think they call it "single payer" and not socialism?

Today the President says he wants only mandatory universal healthcare, not single-payer. The proposed mandatory universal healthcare includes a curiously named public "option." The public "option" will be mandatory--if you don't have healthcare insurance, the government will force you to buy it. President Obama is not telling Americans that he ultimately wants universal single-payer healthcare because healthcare "re-form" would not pass in Congress if he advocated socialism directly. Most Congressional "re-form" supporters pretend for the public that individual Americans will still be in control of their healthcare after healthcare "re-form" legislation passes. "Re-formers" are rushing to pass legislation in Obama's first year because of the fleeting nature of political capital.

As Anita Dunn said, pols can't be "honest" with Americans about their real vision for America; no longer can a politician "get away with" what they could just four years ago. Dunn is right, and President Obama has learned his lesson: he can no longer pay the premium for honesty. The President is lying because he thinks he knows what's best for Americans. Remember: it's for your own good, it won't hurt a bit, and you'll be thanking them later.

Or will you?

Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians (Part 1)

"One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!" Thomas Sowell, "Listening to a Liar" on the eve of the President's September 9, 2009 speech to Congress on Healthcare "Re-form"

When politicians talk about how things get paid for, they're usually talking about the free market vs. some form of collectivism: either socialism or fascism. Certain words are hot buttons in American politics, so instead of speaking truthfully, politicians use euphemisms to distract the majority, who often don't understand what socialism or fascism even mean.

For example, when the US government invaded Iraq, they called it Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)--they want to distract you, not inform you. When the government wants to subsidize an industry, it gives the operation a benign-sounding label:

• Cash for Clunkers subsidized a government enterprise while supposedly helping the environment.
• TARP subsidized well-connected investment bankers by clearing toxic investments off their books and loaning them money.
• The Stimulus bill plans to dump hundreds of billions of dollars off a cliff with special interests at the bottom waiting with empty dump trucks, ready to drive off laden with cash. Are you stimulated?

Similarly, all the debate about healthcare reform isn't about improving health care. The re-form is about who pays.

Calling it "healthcare" reform is the first lie.

Now is the time to deliver

President Obama (D) and his supporters have a vision of how you should pay for healthcare in America. He seems to believe, as does his White House communications director Anita Dunn, that once you choose "your Calcutta"--your vision--you don't have to let anyone tell you how to get there. Anything goes. Apparently lying included. Sowell has similarly observed this motif in the Obama administration:

"There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening."

The second lie: the Obama administration's urgency to push healthcare "re-form" legislation through Congress before its August recess, when the legislation wouldn't take effect until 2013, and while so many Americans oppose it.

Read my lips

The White House website lists talking points about the latest incarnation of the healthcare "re-form" legislation saying: "it is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term." In his September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama said:

"And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."

Sounds a little like "Read my lips: no new taxes," uttered by GHW Bush (R) in 1988, doesn't it? He too was lying back then. But President Obama doesn't pretend that he won't increase taxes to pay for his "re-form":

"Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care."

Are you wealthy? In today's economy that might mean anyone not broke. Get ready to get it good and hard from the "healthcare re-formers."

In a column, "Listening to a Liar Part II," economist Thomas Sowell suggests:

"To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence."

Are you insulted by the President and his healthcare "re-form" supporters? Need more proof? The phony 1/4 trillion dollar bill to buy AMA support was an attempt to keep the "re-form" legislation under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama. Anything more makes the CBO estimate show a deficit increase.

To say healthcare "re-form" legislation won't increase the deficit is also a lie.

When "option" doesn't mean optional

Well before his campaign for President, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama made clear his preference for a universal single-payer healthcare system--where the government pays healthcare bills. In a June 30, 2003 talk to the Illinois AFL-CIO (video) he said:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama's socialist view dogged him during his campaign for President (video). He squirmed out of his history of support for a single payer universal health care system, saying that while he preferred a single payer system, he wasn't proposing one. Instead, candidate Obama proposed a "public option." In this case, "public option" means that if you have other insurance, you don't have to select the "public option." But everyone must buy healthcare insurance: you would not be allowed to go without health insurance.

Many of the 40 plus million people without health insurance make a decision to go without because they can't afford it, or because they don't think healthcare insurance is worth the price. That would no longer be an option if the "public option" becomes law. This is similar to government elections: you can decide not to vote, but you can't vote "none of the above" to throw the bums out. You always get stuck with one of the "choices" on the ballot.

Another lie then: calling the "public option" optional.

Single Payer Trojan Horse

The President repeatedly says the public "option" is the best way "to ensure choice and competition so badly needed in today’s market." Sowell disputes this:

"President Obama tells us that he will impose various mandates on insurance companies but will not interfere with our free choice between being insured by these companies or by the government. But if he can drive up the cost of private insurance with mandates and subsidize government insurance with the taxpayers' money, how long do you think it will be before we have the 'single payer' system he has advocated in the past?"

The biggest lie: the President denies the public "option" is a Trojan horse for socialized healthcare.

Mao and Mother Teresa

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before." Obama campaign adviser and now his White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn in a June 5, 2009 speech to graduating high school students at St. Andrews Episcopal School.

Glenn Beck of Fox News told all who'd listen about Anita Dunn's speech (video) about life's choices to high school students. Dunn talks about her "two favorite political philosophers": Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, and Beck is livid that people aren't marching in the streets about it. While Obamaphiles won't acknowledge that following Mao's political philosophy is wrong, according to Beck, Dunn's speech is more evidence that the federal government has been taken over by Communists. Why else would an inner circle Obama adviser claim Mao, who caused the deaths of millions during his life, as one of her favorite philosophers?

Find Your Own Calcutta

The part of Mao's wisdom that enamors Dunn is that he wasn't deterred from achieving his vision. Dunn continues:

"But here's the deal, these are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947 when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, how can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this against all of the odds against you? And Mao Tse Tung said, 'You fight your war and I'll fight mine.' Think about that for a second, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths."

Dunn is correct, Mao didn't follow other people's choices and paths; he followed his own and killed anyone who disagreed with him.

Dunn next relates an anecdote of Mother Teresa telling a woman who wanted to help change the world that the woman must find her "own Calcutta" to succeed. Mother Teresa uses Calcutta as a metaphor for some instance of human misery where that woman could serve others to improve their lives. Just as Mother Teresa did with her own life.

Taking the quote from Mao and the example of Mother Teresa together, Dunn seems to be saying that once you decide on your own Calcutta, it's doesn't matter how many people you kill getting there. What terrifies Beck and many Americans is that someone as close to Obama as Dunn is, could consider Mao, a killer of millions, as admirable a role model as Mother Teresa.

Dunn juxtaposes Mother Teresa and Mao, and while aware of the irony, she doesn't see the contradiction. Mother Teresa is worthy of emulation, not only because her vision was to do good, but because of how she went about it. Mother Teresa spent her life serving the most miserable of society: the disabled, diseased, elderly, alcoholics, and the poor and homeless. The reasons Mother Teresa is worthy of emulation are exactly the same reasons Mao is unworthy.

Mao Is Not Alone

Recently, the 60th anniversary of Mao's founding of the People's Republic of China was not celebrated in Changchun. In 1948, one year after he said what Dunn now finds so pithy, Mao's army blockaded Changchun and starved 160,000 civilians to death while battling Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Army.

Historians calculate that over his life Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70 million human beings, more than Hitler and Stalin combined. While a prolific killer, Mao wasn't unique in finding "his Calcutta," just more impatient with the opposition. He's got company in the US:

• The siege of Changchun was three years after the Truman (D) administration incinerated as many people in Hiroshima and 70,000 more in Nagasaki.
• The US-led embargo of Iraq during the GHW Bush (R) and Clinton (D) administrations killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians.
• The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 by GW Bush (R) administration has killed approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
• The Obama (D) administration hasn't let killing civilians prevent it from pursuing its vision of a "better world": the American share of the Afghan civilian death total is estimated by the UN at over 300 for US air strikes in the first six months of 2009. Isn't one life lost, one too many?

American citizens aren't marching in the streets to protest Dunn's kind of reasoning because it's business as usual in the US: the civilians killed by the US are just fewer in number and usually aren't citizens.

Robert Reich Finds His Calcutta

In another example of Dunn-like reasoning where the ends justifies the means, Robert Reich, former Clinton administration secretary of Labor and Obama campaign adviser, made an ad (video) shilling for the "public option" for healthcare re-form this year. Reich smiles, Red Riding Hood cringes, then Reich calmly and quietly explains the "public option":

"You've probably heard a lot about something called the public option for healthcare reform. But many Americans don't feel they know exactly what it is. Imagine you live in a city like say, Cleveland. Right now in most of the city you can choose from only a few plans.

"With the public option you'd be able to choose between these plans and the public option. That's it. It's that simple... The public plan would not be subsidized or have the government set the rules for anyone. If they aren't the best, they lose. That's not very scary or complicated at all. Is it?"

As Reich finishes you can picture a reassured grandmother or grandfather telling their representative to support the "public option" as the best thing. All that talk about rationing and death panels? Just more scare tactics by special interests, right? Or was it?

What Reich doesn't mention in his 2009 ad is what he said two years earlier on September 26, 2007 at Berkeley, where Reich described what an honest President would say about healthcare reform. According to Reich, "this is what the truth is...and what the candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy in which citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship" (audio):

"By the way, ahh, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die." (Audience whoops and applauds.)

Reich obviously doesn't have any problem lying to accomplish his vision. For now it's socialized healthcare. He won't advertise that once the government controls healthcare, if you're old, "we're going to let you die."

How many of those who can see what's wrong with Mao causing the deaths of millions for his vision, cannot see that it's just as wrong when US troops invade and kill in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan for the US government's vision of what the world should look like? Or see that it's just as wrong when prevaricating bureaucrats and cheering college students decide when the old should die to support their vision? Both Rs and Ds seem to think that it's ok for others to die for a vision.

Does a good purpose ever justify any means taken to achieve it?

How about when you feed only your own children or grandparents into the fire to achieve it? Or like Mother Teresa, when you put only your own life on the line?