Bill McGurn helps highlight two defects in ObamaCare — its uncertainty and its potential to bully the American people. They come together in the provision for an individual mandate, something Obama ran against during the campaign (when he was also promising not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000).
How could there be uncertainty about this key feature? Nancy Pelosi promised, after all, that if we passed it, we’d find out what was in it. Well, this is what comes of racing through a largely secretive legislative process. McGurn explains “one of the murkiest bits of this legislation”:
In testimony before a House Ways and Means subcommittee last Thursday, the IRS commissioner deflected questions about the agency’s precise role vis-à-vis health care. Mr. Shulman reassured citizens that this bill does not “fundamentally alter” their relationship with the IRS, and said the IRS would not be snooping into their health records. About the penalties associated with the mandate, he was less clear.
Partly that’s because the law is unclear. The original House bill opened the door for criminal sanctions against Americans who didn’t buy health insurance and pay the penalty. The Senate bill did the same until Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) successfully pushed to amend the bill. Even so, the final language begs the question that Mr. Shulman and Mr. Weiner avoided: Who’s going to enforce the mandate, and how?
You might wonder how we can possibly predict costs if we don’t know how many people, if any, are going to herded into the arms of Big Insurance. You might wonder how we are going to achieve compliance with a law that many already resent if it’s not even clear whether the IRS will go after people. Both are good questions, revealing just how uninterested the Democrats were in thinking through and crafting effective legislation. They simply wanted a notch in their belt and to silence the hollering from their base. Getting a coherent, understandable legislative scheme just wasn’t a priority for them.
And then there is the bullying if, in fact, the mandate exists and will be enforced with the full power of the federal government:
Almost by definition, those hit by the mandate will be either young people starting out, or those working for smaller businesses that do not provide employees with health coverage. Back in November, a report by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that nearly half (46%) of the mandate penalties will be paid by Americans under 300% of the poverty line. In today’s dollars, that works out to $32,500 for an individual. For a family of four, it’s $66,150. …
In his appearance before Congress, Mr. Shulman stated he was still working on “the proper resources” the IRS would need to handle the tax provisions of the health-care act. Maybe that won’t mean 16,500 new agents. If the Republicans do manage to take back Congress come November, however, it should mean hearings in which Mr. Shulman provides the American people with specific answers about how much bigger the IRS is going to get because of this bill—and how exactly the IRS will deal with Americans who don’t pay the penalty tax.
So we will, as McGurn points out, either witness the IRS hassling modest-income Americans into buying insurance they don’t want, or the law will be “unenforced.” If it is the latter, all the estimated cost “savings” supposedly achieved by expanding the risk pool of the newly insured can be tossed onto the heap of misrepresentations and fiscal fantasies deployed to pass the bill despite the dire warnings of those like Rep. Paul Ryan. This is the personification of the ever-growing bureaucratic state — incomprehensible, threatening, and very, very expensive.
Well, exactly. But since the Left almost always wants the government to intervene and prohibit anything it criticizes, it may be hard for a leftist to see how one can criticize specific editorial decisions, yet affirm freedom of the press as a general principle.
I served 20 years defending the New York Times’ editors’ right to run their paper like sophomoric jackasses. And I’d do it again. Doesn’t mean I approve of their editorial posture, nor is there any reason why it should.
It must be a heartbreak for McCain for NYT (the bastion of liberalism) to reject his op-ed considering he infuriate alot of conservatives for bending over to accommodate liberal agenda.
Myna, that is why no one should feel sorry for McCain at all in this matter. He used the Times and other leftist outlets to hammer President Bush. He even praised the coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident in arguing that Congress should pass a new Shield Law.
This is standard business on the left, which cannot seem to understand the difference between the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on government control over speech, and the right of the people to criticize what someone else says or refuses to say. For example, lefty commentators have long cried “censorship” when artists are denied an NEA grant due to conservative complaints, not understanding that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to speak, not a government subsidy for speech.
It is certainly not hypocrisy to harshly criticize the (supposedly unbiased) NY Times for publishing the op-ed of one candidate for President without allowing the other candidate to respond with a message of his choosing, so long as we remember that the NY Times has, and should have, a constitutional right not to publish an op-ed piece in its sole discretion. Indeed, as long as the NY Times pretends to be non-partisan, while acting as the media wing of the DNC and Obama campaign that imbalance must be identified and decried every time it manifests itself.
Hypocrisy is the gold medal of “gotchas” as far as the Left is concerned. And of course, equality is the gold medal standard for democracy, as far as the Left is concerned. So the natural result is the advocacy of a government that runs around creating “level playing fields” for everyone, in every situation imaginable. Yet, apparently, only under such terms of a level playing field as that imagined by the Left, can a reasonable discussion of views be obtained.
But then it is quite a stretch to invoke the Fairness Doctrine, which only applies to broadcast media, when discussing the criticism of print media editorial decisions.
But then without the “hook” of the Fairness Doctrine and hypocrisy, Fernholz wouldn’t have had anything to write about.
The NYT does not have to publish it, but they cannot claim to be nothing more than the Obama church newsletter when they refuse, presence of Brooks and Kristol be damned.
Jamie, if Obama sent a 5 minute piece to the EIB, would you argue Rush Limbaugh should play it? (I mean that as an honest question — I can see arguments on both sides.)
J Mann– Can we agree that the NYT is as biased and partial in favor of liberals/Democrats as the EIB is in favor of conservatives/Republicans?
OTR – My own politics are closer to the EIB’s, but I wouldn’t agree to that in practice.
In their hearts, I’m sure most of the editors, publishers, and reporters at the NYT are as far left as El Rushbo is right, but the NYT-ers see themselves as having a duty to provide objective news. They don’t do a very good job of it, but their belief in that duty limits their scope a little.
The Daily Show is a closer analogue to EIB – both venues see themselves as reporting information that is fundamentally true, but not having any duty to stick to MSM “journalistic objectivity” (both sides think it’s a fraud).
I actually think that if Obama sent a 5-minute piece to Rush and requested that Rush play it unedited, Rush probably would do it. He would respond to it, but my guess is he would play it.
J Mannie,
did Rush Limbaugh play a 5 minute piece by John McCain? Did he refuse to play one for Obama? Does he make a secret of his conservative views, or does he bloviate about being the DJ of record? Is the NYT an unbiased news agency that doesn’t promote extreme left-wing causes at every opportunity? Did “Jaimie” write that the NYT are required to feature an op-ed by McCain? Did he claim the NYT don’t have the right to print an op-ed by Obama?
The answer to all these questions is “NO.” That makes you a spin-meister and an @$$hole, like your fellow travelers at the NYT.
Whoa, Phil, back up off the trigger. I thought it was pretty well known that I’m not an NYT fan. (Granted, my blog hasn’t been updated in like years, but if you check it, it should establish at least a *little* conservative cred.)
J Mann — the salient point is not what we think about Rush Limbaugh playing an Obama recording, the point is that it should be his decision — and he would be accountable for the effect of his editorial decisions on audience share.
Under the “Fairness Doctrine,” government would start weighing in on whether Limbaugh should play Obama recordings. (The effect wouldn’t be that simplistic and direct, but it would come out essentially the same: government dictating whose recordings get played.)
I have no quarrel with NYT’s freedom to reject McCain’s op-eds, and to ask him to rewrite them. NYT should be free to do that. I am free to call NYT names for doing that. Rush Limbaugh is free to play Obama recordings, or not, on his broadcast. You and I are free to express our opinions about whether he should do that.
Please reread the last paragraph. THAT is how it should be. Thankfully, that’s how it is right now, with the Fairness Doctrine revoked. Freedom of speech. It should never be any other way.