Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Calling A Spade A Spade: Obama Lies

All politicians veer away from the truth from time to time; they all embellish, obfuscate, prevaricate, etc., and Obama can do those things with the best of them ? in fact, with his teleprompter and the premeditation it requires, better than most. But I?m not talking about embellishment, obfuscation, etc.. I?m talking about lying.

Before supporting this charge, however, let me reply to the predictable accusation that my using the phrase ?calling a spade a spade? with regard to Obama lying is racist because ?spade? is an old slur against blacks. That term is indeed an old slur, but that doesn?t mean every use of it in every context is racist.

Most people know that to call a spade a spade means that we should avoid euphemism, be straightforward, use blunt or plain language. Most Americans also know that spade is a rather outmoded derogatory slang term for an African-American. Putting the two ideas together, though, requires a person whose sensitivity to possibly offensive language is greater than their knowledge of word history. (Nothing new about that, though: remember all the fuss in Washington in 1999 over the word niggardly....)

That out of the way, let?s turn to the lie. It?s not the biggest or most consequential lie from the administration during the health care debate, but it is one of the easier ones to document.

Perhaps Obama?s most repeated, even signature health reform assertion is that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, etc., etc. ?If you like your doctor, you?re going to be able to keep your doctor,? Obama asserted as recently as March 19, two days before the health care vote, at a rally at George Mason University. ?If you like your plan, keep your plan.?

This assertion has been criticized many time before, but my point is not simply that it?s wrong. It?s a conscious, premeditated lie. Evidence? Take a look at the $53 billion Obama and the Dems use to offset part of the cost of the cost of their reform. Look where that money comes from:

Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages

In other words, despite his ?if you like your health plan you can keep you health plan? mantra, Obama has long known that as a result of his legislation many employers would drop their health plans (the newly infallible CBO estimated that ?15 million people who get coverage through their employer would no longer do so?). In fact, he counted on it, for those employers would then pay higher wages in lieu of the dropped benefits, leading to more money flowing into Social Security from those higher wages. Not only did he count on it; he counted the money as additional revenue to offset health reform costs.

Of courses, those higher contributions are not unencumbered, since because of them Social Security is concomitantly obligated to pay out higher benefits in the future. But hey, that?s only one of many such sleazy accounting sleights of hand that permeate this legislation, more like normal political misrepresentation. But when Obama repeated his ?keep your doctor? March 19, he knew he was counting on $53 billion dollars in ?savings? from the higher Social Security contributions of millions of people who could not keep their health plans if they wanted to. And thus he was lying.

Full post as published by Discriminations on March 24, 2010 (boomark / email).