With Christmas vacation just around the corner (we’re starting tomorrow), and little going on in the news, it wasn’t too easy to find a topic to write about this morning.
On the one hand, we’ve got the FCC trying to seize control over the internet, ostensibly to keep it free but more truthfully doing the bidding of certain companies. On the other, we’ve got Rahm Emanuel’s desperate prayers that Santa bring him a Chicago residence. Or you’ve got START probably passing the Senate, giving Obama another victory that the Democrats will trumpet and the public will ignore. Or you’ve got redistricting. Redistricting is kind of fun, as it looks like the Republicans are likely to add at least six permanent votes in the House and the Electoral College. . . I guess people really don’t like high taxes and run-amok liberalism after all?
But none of these things have caught my interest as much as the commercials intended to brainwash the public into thinking that ObamaCare isn’t such a bad thing. Grrrrr.
I’m sure you remember the first ad: that one involved the ghost of Andy Griffith’s zombie corpse as he sure does tell us how this new health care law is a gosh darn good thing. It won’t cost anything and it will make us all young again. . . because it’s magic, and golly, let’s all vote Democratic because they passed it. Grrrrr.
These ads ran only in September and October (just in time to help the Democrats re-election campaign) and they cost taxpayers $3,184,000. And, frankly, they should be illegal. Federal law prohibits the use of government money to lobby. This is lobbying. Agencies are allowed to use various means to spread the word about new programs or changes in the law, but this is not that. These ads cross the line into advocating, like when Griffith (who worked for free -- another violation of Federal law) tells us that he thinks this here health care law is a mighty fine thing. That’s an opinion, not a fact.
Moreover, the ad is misleading. Both Judicial Watch and FactCheck.org (which is associated with the University of Pennsylvania) have concluded as much. Said FactCheck:
If this had been a company making these kinds of false claims, the FTC would have made them issue a retraction, which I’m thinking is a good idea. . . right before the next election.“Would the sheriff of Mayberry mislead you about Medicare? Alas, yes. In a new TV spot from the Obama administration, actor Andy Griffith, famous for his 1960s portrayal of the top law enforcement official in the fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., touts benefits of the new health care law. Griffith tells his fellow senior citizens, ‘like always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits.’ But the truth is that the new [Obamacare] law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries -- those in private Medicare Advantage plans.”
Further, these ads were produced by Obama insider Catherine “Kiki” McLean, which reeks of both politics and crony politics, just as Hillary’s pollster “coincidentally” got contracts under the Stimulus Plan that matched the debt Hillary owed him. Grrrr.
Now they’re at it again with a new ad. This time they have two black women sitting around a table as one tells the other about all the great things they're going to get from ObamaCare. Grrrr. The government is not Santa. It’s job is not to give you things, and to encourage that attitude is infuriating, especially when the point of these ads is so clearly to shore up Obama supporters rather than advise people on specific, factual benefits.
(Apparently, they are also buying ads on google now, including paying to have search results lead you to their webpages.)
These are the sorts of things the Justice Department needs to look at, but we don’t have a Justice Department at the moment. So this will fall on Congress in the next session. Congress needs to look into this and take appropriate steps to end this practice. And if that takes retaliating by authorizing ads that will make the Democrats scream bloody murder so they will agree to stop the government from doing this, then so be it. I’m thinking a retraction of the lies told in the 2010 ads would be nice. . . to air, say, in October 2012.
Come on Santa, how about a little rule of law this year?!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Taxpayer Funded ObamaCare Lies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Andrew - Just what did you expect from Opie's dad anyway? Tne newer one, featuring the two black ladies is especially obvious. It reminded me of a clip I heard (on Rush's program perhaps ?) where these young black women are talking about Obama bucks. And all at taxpayer expense.
Jed, I had the same thought -- the new one is really blatant. "Oh look what uncle government gave us now." It screams "entitlement" and it's truly obnoxious.
Oh Jed, I love / hate that clip that Rush plays!
"Where's he getting the money?"
"His stash! I don't know, but he's giving it to us!"
Ugh.
There's a radio ad playing too touting how wonderful the new healthcare plan is going to be for prescriptions! And people in the donut hole! Yay!!!
Makes me sick.
The problem is that we are tipping dangerously close to the point where the majority of Americans do think that the purpose of government is to give us stuff. And when we do tip, it's going to get uglier before it gets better.
Crispy, I've heard the ad you're talking about. It's despicable. And it should be illegal. I understand informing people about benefits, but this "it's great" business is lobbying. Grrrr.
DUQ, Sadly, that's true, and that's part of the Democratic agenda -- get everyone hooked on some sort of benefit and then people won't object to an ever growing government.
It's time we did something like take away the vote from anyone who receives a government check.
Grrrr is right. No surprise, but man is this stuff frustrating. I hope the new Republican congress does something about it.
Speaking of ads in general, there is an annoying bevy of "public service" ads on radio that tell us everything from when and how to brush your teeth to making sure your child is strapped into a safety seat when traveling in a car. I'd like to know how much the total cost of all these ads is. It's such a colossal waste, not to mention insulting to the average person's intelligence.
Pitts, It's very frustrating and I hope that the Republicans do something about it as well. Maybe it's time to just ban advertising by government agencies?
I agree about the PSA. I understand warning people about some strange new disease, but telling people basic hygiene or not to put their social security number on the internet is just ridiculous. If people are that stupid, then a PSA isn't going to help them.
I agree with the sentiment of not letting people on the public dole vote, Andrew, but unfortunately it is a slippery slope that I'm not sure how we could define. If you have federally subsidized student loans (which you voluntarily took), does that discount you? What about if you take the mortgage tax credit?
Pittsburgh, those drive me crazy, too! Why is the government spending money telling me to brush my teeth or send away for an anti-crime coloring book??
If private organizations want to do that, fine, great, wonderful idea. But it's not a government function.
Speaking of which, I saw a headline on Drudge about "free yoga - another benefit for the unemployed!" Well, in reality, it's some yoga studios that are (of their own free will) doing free or reduced yoga classes for unemployed people.
I'm thinking, THIS is exactly how it should be. If a company feels compassionate and wants to do something to help people, perfect. No government coercion, no government intervention, just people helping people.
It bugs me a bit that Drudge is making it sound like our tax dollars are buying people yoga, when this is actually the exact way the system should be working.
Have I mentioned that I hate Obama?
when i read this: "These are the sorts of things the Justice Department needs to look at,..." i burst out laughing because as you then quickly pointed out, we don't have a justice department at the moment.
i've also been wondering if the republicans coming in are up for the job we want them to do. so many that were hoped to be tough have turned into such great disappointment (brown), that i won't hold my breath, yet i will be watching just as most of you.
Crispy - I read that article about the yoga classes for the unemployed too and thought that it was going to be an article about how taxpayers are paying for them. But I didn't get that out of the aritcle. So, I agree with you, I have no problem is a business whats to provide that kind of service.
And I'm in agreement with others, why is a PSA needed to tell me how to live? Especially something like brushing my teeth. The government is really trying to get everyone on some sort of dole and dependance on them, which is disgraceful.
Andrew,
I feel betrayed by Andy Griffith. I know it is stupid to feel that way. I know that if he understood that ObamaCare means to become death panels and will kill quite a few people in time, Andy would not have done the ad. Still.... it is just sad.
DUQ, I know, but I still like the idea. We need to find a way to keep people from voting themselves money.
Crispy, Drudge is often wrong with the way he describes headlines. . . but not moreso than the MSM.
I agree with you completely, charity should be something that people do on their own, not something they expect from the government. In fact, when the government gets involved, it tends to crowd out private charity -- a double whammy.
Lawhawk, Not to my knowledge, no.
Patti, I'm seeing a lot of signs that the new crop has a backbone, but we'll see.
Yeah, it's frustrating that we no longer have a Justice Department. Of all the agencies, that one should be the least political -- it should simply be the government's lawyer. But they've managed to politicize it so much that it's become a policy tool and that's despicable.
Jocelyn, I don't get it either. Are there really that many people out there who need to be told by the government how to brush their teeth or sneeze or whatever? And if there are people with that little knowledge, how did they get that way? And if they got their way under the tutelage and care of the government, why in the world should we trust the government (1) to fix this, and (2) to take care of more people?
Joel, I feel the same way. Griffith was one of those people that I thought was better than this. He is letting them use him as bait for old people so they won't complain when they lose their health care and that's truly sad.
andrew: new diss of the day: policy tool!
Patti, I like that one!
I agree that charity should NEVER come from government. I like to paraphrase a Walter E. Williams quote on this subject, which puts it into perspective so well: It is noble when a man reaches into his own pocket to help a fellow human being, but it is despicable when a man reaches into another man's pocket to help a fellow human being.
Pitts, Fantastic quote! Very true! Sadly, too many people don't see that. They think it makes them a "good person" to demand that "the government" take care of people. It never occurs to them that the government needs to steal from others to make that happen.
I was really disappointed in Sheriff Andy when he agreed to do these ads, and I'm with you about this whole thing being pretty upsetting.
Ed, I don't think you're alone in your disappointment. I think a lot of people viewed him as much less political than that.
Post a Comment