On Wednesday the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act passed last year by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Three Democrats in the chamber joined the unanimous Republican caucus to pass the repeal 245-189. Since Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and the President would veto repeal even if the Senate were to go along with the House, the vote will not actually lead to repeal any time soon.
The continuing debate over the measure is instructive. What is particularly interesting and disappointing to me about it is how the Republican case is being made. Since its introduction the Republicans have made no bones that they don't like the health care act. They don't like it primarily because they philosophically do not agree with it. They don't like government programs, they don't like government getting involved in the economy (even if thousands of preventable deaths can be avoided) and they don't like the purchase requirement (mandate) that is necessary to fund the premiums for lower-income Americans. Okay, fine. These are all arguments they can make. One doesn't have to agree with them, but they are valid contentions from their point of view.
So why do they have to lie? The measure was titled the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." In addition to saying Health Care will cost "millions of jobs" they further say that repeal will save billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan fact providers for the lawmakers, found that the law would actually save money, $230 billion over 10 years, and probably result in a net gain in jobs, not eliminate them. At the least it will be neutral on jobs. Go to FactCheck.com, a group with a good reputation for neutral evaluation of the truth, for corroboration.
It's depressingly familiar to see these misrepresentations. Why do they have to tell lies to strengthen their case? They could be saying, "Sure, the bill may save some money but we feel there are other reasons to oppose it that are more important." They could say, accurately, "The bill does not promise to be a big job creator." But they don't. Instead they disregard facts and make up lies. When people feel they have to make up lies to justify an argument it says a lot about either the strength of their position or about their character and ethics. Or maybe both.
2 comments:
So true, so true. But isn't that what politics is all about anyway?
Lie to get elected. Make a bunch of pontificating speeches to make it sound like you're doing something, then lie to get elected again.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Yes, so often true, Webfoot. But I do not feel it is that way with all candidates all the time. I do feel there are some with greater sincerity, and some who do not feel the need to fabricate "facts" to make their points.
Post a Comment