Charles Krauthammer dissects three Obama promises and finds not flat-out lies, but far more clever evasions. CK thinks this time they will fail. Read his entire column, and savor his Medicare deconstruction of 44:
Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.
That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.
Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?
Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.
So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.
Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.
Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.
What the Wall Street Journal editors call Obama's Nontax Tax shows how slick 44 can be, in this instance, on mandating people to buy HC insurance not being truly a tax (which of course it is):
"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"
Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."
So 44 is arguing with...a dictionary definition. Politics is wonderful, eh? Read the full exchange and enjoy. No wonder columnist Michael Goodwin sees 44 losing public trust; MG cites a recent, astonishing poll number from Quinnipiac: by a 68-26 percent margin Connecticut voters reject 44's assertion that ObamaCare will not add to the federal deficit. Connecticut is a liberal state, on balance.
Another area where 44 slips & slides around is ACORN's recent scandals. He had been an attorney for the group. Read this 3-page TAS ACORN history explaining its militant roots & criminal tactics. Another 44 gimmick, as Forbes's Terry Keenan details, is using respected public figures like Paul Volcker as window dressing.
Michael Barone adds that liberals--including 44--tend to deride opponents more & more, rather than acknowledge legitimate opposing arguments. This will, MB suggests, hurt them in the long run.
Bottom Line. If Obama keeps all this up, it will make one nostalgic for Slick Willei (Clinton) and Tricky Dick (Nixon).
Comments