Daily Archives: October 23, 2010
As a writer I can’t help noticing subtleties in the articles and books I read. A good writer packs a lot of meaning into a short space, and sometimes creates impressions in the reader that are subconscious.
Here’s an example from this weekend:
Obama made his fourth trip to Nevada Friday for a week-before-the-election rally and fundraiser to help Reid squeak out a victory despite low popularity in his home state and an adverse political climate. [Emphasis mine]
I’ve seen the same phrase several times over the last few months, always referring to the travails of embattled Democrats.
Notice the implied message. Those poor Democrats are not being beaten by motivated, possibly better qualified opponents. Nor are they contending with the results of their own disastrous, unpopular policies. Instead, they are dealing with “an adverse political climate”, as if the entire situation were just some random storm that blew up out of nowhere.
This enables reporters to talk about the problems of Democratic candidates without having to face up to the reality of Democratic administration of the last four years for Congress and two years for the White House. They don’t have to come right out and say that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. have been a disaster for the political left. And they certainly don’t have to make any serious examination of their own internal assumptions that leftism is the ideal political philosophy.
The reporters can even sound somewhat sympathetic to the candidates’ plight. You can almost hear their internal dialog. “Gosh, we don’t know where the storm came from, but those Democrats sure are getting drenched! Isn’t it awful that our statesmen like Reid have to contend with such random things?”
Perhaps I just don’t remember, but I don’t think I saw that phrase when Republicans were getting hammered in 2006 and 2008. Everything was Bush’s fault and the fault of those Republicans caught in assorted ethical scandals. This year, the much worse offenses of Charlie Rangel are quickly shuffled to the “old news” pile and never, ever trotted back out when discussing Democrats’ lagging campaigns.
As I tiresomely repeat, to defeat the political left, it’s important to constantly be on watch for their post-modern attempts to redefine the terms used in politics to make themselves look better. I hope every time you see “adverse political climate” from this point, you’ll translate it more appropriately as “deep, deep hole the Democrats dug for themselves, which the reporter is too chickensh!t to acknowledge.”
I don’t want this one to slip by, because it is significant. It is yet another study that shows the numbers attributed to the cost of ObamaCare were so much nonsense. The interesting thing is it comes from an organization friendly to ObamaCare (via HotAir):
Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to use its economic models to estimate how many individuals would benefit from the new premium tax credits in 2014 and the value of the dollars going to help pay for insurance (see the Methodology on page 12 for more details). We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion.
Where’s the disconnect? Well the Congressional/CBO estimate for this particular cost was almost 600% lower than the Lewin Group study. Ed Morrissey lays it out:
In his presentation to Congress, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf predicted a cost of only $20 billion on health-exchange subsidies and associated costs. The Lewin Group, which conducted the study for Families USA, shows that four times as many people will become eligible for subsidies in 2014 than the CBO predicted in March and that the cost will be 550% higher as a result (page 4 of the linked study).
How did the CBO arrive at those numbers with which to calculate the cost of ObamaCare? Well when Morgen at Verum Serum pointed out the discrepancy to Families USA, they had a peculiar answer:
Morgen also contacted Families USA to get an explanation of the difference, and was told that he made an “apples to oranges” comparison. Why? This survey, they explained, showed how many people would be eligible, while the CBO predicted how many people would actually take advantage of their eligibility for tax credits. This is an odd distinction to make, since the entire idea of the subsidies is to encourage uninsured Americans to buy health insurance through both mandates and generous subsidies.
How likely will it be that people will pass on the notion of getting big tax credits to subsidize must-issue health insurance? And if the success rate in applying mandates, higher taxes, and more government authority to the 270 million Americans who are already insured is only 20-25% in getting the other 30 million insured, how is that at all successful?
The deficit projection given by Democrats was apparently based on 75% failure rates to get people into the system; their advocates are busy touting the massive amounts of subsidies in the program that will tip ObamaCare into a deficit exploder in Year 2.
75% failure rates? In other words, 75% of those eligible for a generous subsidy through tax credits won’t take advantage of them?
Really? I guess this is one of those “benefits” Bill Clinton was talking about that hasn’t quite made an impression yet – exploding costs well above the nonsense the Democrats used to “justify” the abysmal ObamaCare bill.
Talk about being sold a pig in a poke.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!