In Praise of 'Joe' Wilson: What's Wrong with Calling Out Lies in Congress?

By Dave Lindorff

Liberals are acting all righteous and offended that a member of the Republican opposition, Rep. “Joe” Wilson of South Carolina, would deign to besmirch the “dignity of the presidency” by calling out “Liar!” in the middle of President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.

But what’s wrong with that? Whatever the veracity of Obama’s claim that his proposed health care “reform” would not pay for the health care of illegal immigrants residing in the US (and one can only hope that statement was fatuous, because at a minimum we would certainly want the government to pay for the care of an illegal immigrant in childbirth, or of an illegal immigrant who came down with a contagious disease), and even if Rep. Wilson is a racist bozo who wrongly thinks or wants to imply that Obama's plan would be out there enrolling undocumented workers in the millions at taxpayer expense, why shouldn’t members of Congress call out a president if they think he’s lying to them from the podium?

One of the big problems with American democracy is that the presidency has over the years been elevated to the level of a monarchy, with all the imperial trappings and pomposity formerly associated with royalty. Presidents surely should get no more respect than a prime minister, and look at the hoots and catcalls PMs have to endure when they address Parliament in the UK. That’s a good thing.

Anyhow, it would have been far better if, instead of clapping wildly, liberal Democrats in Congress had hooted down some of the other whoppers and stretchers told by the president in his health care address. 

Among them:

1. First and foremost, Obama’s claim that he was “determined to be the last” president to have to deal with health care reform and that he didn’t want to “kick the can” down the street for a future administration to deal with. In fact, that is just what he did with his proposal, which has left the basic untenable system of employee-financed healthcare in place, and which has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It’s a sure bet that before very long—perhaps in just four more years—another president will face the same crisis. A boisterous cat-call of “Can Kicker!” here would have been in order.

2. Obama said that “nothing else even comes close” to health care expenditures in terms of causing the federal deficit. In fact, something does---the military budget—but that topic is off limits for both Republicans and Democrats. Why couldn’t Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold have yelled out, “What about military spending!”

3. Perhaps one of the biggest lies of the night was the president’s claim that while there are “arguments to be made” for single-payer systems like Canada’s, switching to single-payer in the US would require building “an entirely new system from scratch.” The truth: Medicare is already a successful single-payer system and in fact, it is bigger and older than Canada’s own nation-wide system. Expanding it to cover every American would not be starting from scratch at all. It would be expanding something already time-tested. Where were the shouts of “What about Medicare!” from Rep. John Conyers (and his dozens of cosponsors), whose bill, HR 676, to expand Medicare to all has been barred from getting even a hearing by the House leadership with encouragement from the White House?

4. The president insisted that insurance executives don’t “cherry-pick” profitable customers and push out those who are sickest, because they are “bad people.” He said they are just doing it because it’s profitable. It would have been nice if at least someone in the assembled throng of lobbiest-enthralled House and Senate members had shouted out something like “Just like bank robbers and drug dealers!” because the truth is that health insurance executives are bad people. They know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies, and they go right ahead and do it. Pursuit of profit does not, or at least should not, constitute a license to kill. (Just imagine a hit man, at his sentencing hearing, telling the judge, “I’m not a bad person, Your Honor. I just knock people off because it’s profitable.”)

5. The president said he was “not trying to put the insurance industry out of business,” and added, “They provide a legitimate service.” This line, not surprisingly, given the amount of money that industry has lavished on members of Congress and on the president himself, got what was probably the loudest bi-partisan applause of the night. But it surely led to a lot of groans and of coffee, tea or beer being spewed out involuntarily across carpets and upholstery in homes across America. Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service. Ask doctors, who have to fight to get permission to treat patients, and then fight to get reimbursed. Ask patients, who spend hours on the phone arguing with faceless drones, some probably in Bangalor or Manila, who are denying them coverage for needed medicines or procedures that are supposed to be covered. Listen to the testimony of whistle-blowers who have confirmed that those drones actually get paid bonuses based upon the number of claims they manage to deny. How satisfying it would have been if someone in Congress had yelled out, “Legitimate service my ass!”

6. Turning to the pathetically circumscribed and downsized “public option” in his “reform” plan, Obama declared that “a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option.” Well that may be true, but it's not the whole truth. It would have been a great moment for Kucinich or Conyers or some other progressive member of Congress to shout out: “A majority also favors a single-payer plan!”

7. And where the defenders of women’s rights, when Obama vowed that under his plan, “no federal funds would be used to fund abortions?” Couldn’t someone have shouted out, “Women have rights too!” Is the president really saying that if a woman is raped, or a child gets pregnant through incest, or if a woman’s life is at risk because of a pregnancy, that his public plan will not pay for her to obtain an abortion? Cries of “For shame!” should have been ringing through the hall!

8. Finally the president said that one reason the nation has such record deficits is that during the prior administration, so many initiatives, “including the Iraq War,” were set in motion but “not paid for,” and he vowed, “I will not make that same mistake with health care.” But he is doing the same thing with supplemental war funding requests for his war in Afghanistan, and with the continued war and occupation in Iraq, and someone should have called him on that. Besides, there’s no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. A lusty “Tax the rich!” cry in unison from the progressive caucus would have been appreciated by viewers.

Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor when, faced with a statement he felt was clearly false, he found he couldn’t repress the urge to call the president a “liar.” In doing so, he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of “respect” that has grown like lichens around the office of President. No more than anyone else in this nation, a president should have to earn the respect not just of the members of Congress, but of the broader public. He or she is another citizen, no more and no less, and when a president, like President Obama in this instance, dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead, it is healthy for democracy if he is called out on it immediately and publicly.

We need more honesty in Washington, not more civility.
_________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dave, you have once again

placed yourself in the position of commending the
extreme RWingnuts for their outstanding job of

" calling out" someone.

I reiterate what another post asked in another thread,
What side are you on?

It's hard to tell here anymore
and certainly does NOT represent Democrats,
the name of this site.

Look up the word

'civility' in the dictionary, please.

Lindorff has been a fence rider for some time.

Wayne Blackshire, I guess that is the difference between a democratic site and a republican site. The right to take either side..God knows repub sites do not allow this.

Keith Olbermann has something to say

Yes, and ...

isn't it wonderful that so-called leftists will side with right-wing racist bigots to make a point?

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

I pretty much agree with Lindorff that lies should be called out, and to hell with civility when it comes to finding the truth. But like Rep. Joe Wilson, Lindorff distorts the truth in order to tear apart something he doesn't like. Let's look at the eight points he makes in praise of Wilson's antics:

1. Because Lindorff disagrees with Obama's approach to reform, he attacks his sincerity. Obama said "I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."  Lindorff writes that Obama's proposal "has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It’s a sure bet that before very long—perhaps in just four more years—another president will face the same crisis."

He ignores the fact that, if implemented, Obama's proposal would achieve major steps in the right direction by outlawing the following: 

- denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, 

- dropping or reducing coverage for those who get sick and file claims when they need care,
- placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage.

Obama's plan would also require limits on out-of-pocket expenses and coverage for preventive care at no extra cost, two things many insurance plans don't currently include.

Lindorff seems to think anything short of a single-payer plan for all (like Medicare) is a worthless gesture. But the current Congress will simply not pass a single-payer plan, so it seems silly to me to press for it at this stage. It's important for Obama to be successful in getting as far-reaching a reform plan as is possible right now so that the issue does not die for another decade or more. Some success now can can lead to further change in the near future, perhaps as soon as Obama's second term.

2. Here, since he can't dispute the veracity of Obama's statement, Lindorff tries to distract us from the fact that unchecked growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending is very rapidly dwarfing even the military budget. The right is complaining that the proposed 2010 Obama budget for defense is dangerously low (the total is $850 billion to $1 trillion depending on what's included in the calculation). It seems Lindorff wants it higher as well. Over the past several decades, spending on defense has generally lurked somewhere between 4.5 and 9 percent of the GDP. While spending on Medicare and Medicaid is about the same as that now, it's expected to hit 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082. Throw in the private spending on health care, and the figure becomes astronomical.

3. Another example of twisting Obama's words to Lindorff's pessimistic end. He takes a few words from one part of Obama's speech and tacks it on to another phrase from a subsequent paragraph to manufacture a statement that he condemns as "one of the biggest lies of the night". Obama has many times mentioned Medicare as a model for the public option he proposes, and on this occasion said "I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

4. It's interesting that Lindorff chooses to attack the same parts of Obama's speech as the right-wing pundits. Sean Hannity tried to claim Obama was calling health insurance executives bad people. Lindorff says "... health insurance executives are bad people." Since those of us who pay for private health insurance provide the profit to these CEOs, who "... know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies...", we must be bad people too.

5. What the President actually said was "...I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."

Now, I share the dream of a universal, single-payer health care system, but I'm not blinded by it. It won't happen with this Congress. Properly implemented, Obama's plan will move us in the right direction. But Lindorff grasps at anything to make the "single-pay or no-way" argument. He writes: "Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service." The reality is that they provide access for millions of people to health care. As far from perfect as this system is, it's what we're currently stuck with. And in spite of the capitalist society we live in and the current make-up of the House and Senate, it looks like we just might get some legitimate reform of that system if we're willing to accept it.

6. Obama said "...it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight". What the hell does Lindorff expect to happen if Kucinich or Conyers were to shout "A majority also favors a single-payer plan!" Would the 39 Republican Senators expected to vote against anything the Democrats propose suddenly change their minds? Given the resistance among the blue-dog Democrats to what Lindorff describes as the "pathetically circumscribed and downsized 'public option' in his 'reform' plan" it seems unlikely they'd be swayed by such an adolescent outburst either.

7. Again, attacking on one of the same issues that the right chooses to use to thwart reform: abortion. Absurdly, Lindorff apparently wants the Obama reform plan to explicitly state that the public insurance option will pay for abortions. Yeah, that would move it right through the House and Senate, lickety-split! What the plan does do is leave in place the long-standing policy under the Hyde amendment that provides for federal funding of abortions in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life.

8. OK, I'll give Lindorff his criticism of Obama for not admitting that his own requests for war-effort funding are contributing to the federal deficit. But he goes on to write: "...there's no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it." First of all, Obama didn't claim that current funding would pay for his proposed plan. He said "Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan... (and) much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers." And while he didn't call for a direct tax on the wealthy to help pay for the plan, he did say "this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies".

Lindorff writes: "Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor." But Wilson was the liar; he claimed something is included in Obama's plan that is not. And Lindorff -- who appeals for the calling-out of anyone who "dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead" -- should take a look in the mirror.

Thank you, Artweller,

for an excellent, well written rebuttal.

Absolutely!

Thank you too!

IN PRAISE OF JOE WILSON

TYPICAL OF THE REPUBLICAN MINDSET IT IS OK FOR REPUBLICANS BUT IF IT HAD BEEN A DEMOCRAT SYAING THAT TO BUSH THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE IMPEACHED OR THROWN THE PERSON SAYING IT OUT OF CONGRESS...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.