Wilson Wrong, Obama did not lie!

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
President Barack Obama

Now, regular readers know I have long held the position that illegals who have lived and worked here peaceably for a certain amount of time should be “grandfathered” into the system; get ‘em contributing to the tax revenues, say I. I also believe that our humanity cannot “not” extend medical treatment to people who are in need, because of their immigration status (or lack thereof). I also think the whole issue of illegals and medical care is a straw man in every politicians pocket because the truth is, if you’re poor and hurt or sick you will be seen in any emergency room in the nation, and treated. That is not comprehensive health care, of course, but it puts the lie to the images of suffering illegals with access to nothing, suffering in our streets.

I have also made myself blue in the face insisting that we need a complete overhaul of the NIS and at our borders 21st Century versions of Ellis Island. And frankly, if President Obama -who seems to want to tackle every issue in the nation, simultaneously without doing anything to increase the job-base, so we can have revenue to pay for it all- could manage a sensible immigration reform, I’d support it.

I suspect his ideas of what is “sensible” and mine are very different, but I’d listen.

But that’s not what this post is about, and I’m still working against a deadline so I can’t get into much tussling over it.

I just wanted to point out that the GOP has apparently decided that Joe Wilson was wrong, and that President Obama could not have been “lying” when he said Obamacare would not cover illegals, because -if this report is to believed- the GOP believes Obama will use healthcare as the back door to legalizing everyone.

So, delicious twist of irony. President Obama, who -we have been told over and over again- has this “gift” of seeming to agree with everyone- brings us to a whole new place in history: the place where lies are not lies, they’re just visionary perspectives that evolve from speech to speech, but there is no actual lying. No one lies, anymore. Unless the president says they do.

We are in such terrible trouble. Can’t someone get this ADHD-president, who wants to do everything all at once, to take a little Ritalin and focus, focus, focus on JOB CREATION?

Or would that run counter to getting enrolled into the (not really dead) public option?

Don’t miss: Ed Morrissey

Charles Krauthammer has more on this whole issue of telling lies

Meanwhile – I keep sayin’!

Also, AJ Strata
thinks Pelosi is right to be concerned about violence And Mut has some fun. Kim Priestap finds a GE/Halliburton link.

Okay, I have to get back to not writing my stuff that I’m supposed to write.

About Elizabeth Scalia

    “…Now, regular readers know I have long held the position that illegals who have lived and worked here peaceably for a certain amount of time should be “grandfathered” into the system…”

    Why reward bad behavior at any time when there is a mechanism for legal immigration? You have to fill in a form and wait in line.

    If we really have a need for, say, agricultural workers, then why not a temporary’Guest Worker’ visa program with these conditions: Single Status, payroll taxes paid, and the employer has to either provide health insurance or sign a statement accepting financial responsibility for the medical treatment of his workers.

    This idea is not new with me. These were the conditions imposed when I lived and worked in Singapore: My employer had to agree to pay for any medical costs I incurred while in-country; any accompanying female had to be my wife, with proof of marriage required; any children were not allowed to attend the public schools, but had to be privately educated – very expensive; I had to rent my flat in a free-hold condominium, I could not rent in a building subsidized by the national government; and my employer had to make the appropriate contribution to the national retirement scheme, but I was not eligible to participate.

    Now you might say, “If we did that a tomato would cost ten bucks!”

    It might. But, then, isn’t the purpose of the price mechanism to send signals as to the true cost so as to allow proper deployment of scarce resources?

    The IRS has a category they call “Imputed Income.” If, in addition to money wages, an alien worker had to show the public cost of sending his kids to school, and the fair market value of medical treatment at the local emergency room, as income, he’d quickly find that picking tomatoes is not a minimum wage job. And, maybe with costs no longer masked by hidden subsidies, American workers might find these jobs worth doing.

  • Jack B. Nimble


    Although you did not say it, President Obama’s preoccupation with multi-tasking important public policy absent evidence of priorities and consensus building raises more questions about the psychology of the president than it does his leadership capacities (or lack thereof). Narcissism anyone?

  • brooklyn

    A fine post, great fun…

    The call for focus on “job creation” is pointless however.

    The Democratic Party has proven repeatedly on the State and Local level, now again with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. – they simply do not know sound economic policy for all in a Free Society.

    Even the Democrats rush to increase the minimum wage, after taking over Congress in 2006, helped grow unemployment.

    Democrats have just wasted billions of US taxpayer money on a so-called Stimulus Bill, which peddled influence to Partisan interests.

    But they don’t realize massive government spending rarely drives a Free Market economy, and often weakens it with inflation.

    Carter was a primary example of the Democrat conviction, which has proven disastrous, but the Democratic Partisans haven’t learned a thing.

    Even the Clintons rushed to give us one of the most massive tax increases in US History, and then tried to Nationalize Health Care before the American Public gave power to the GOP in Congress in 1994.

    In fact, the Clinton Administration provided billions in Federal Loan Guarantees to Enron, which made matters far worse – similar to the Fanny and Freddie exploitation of the mortgage industry.

    If one looks at LA, CA, MI, NJ, etc., you can see the horrid impact of the Democratic Party’s policies on the economy, raising the cost of living for all, with reckless governmental spending (providing no return on investment), oppressive taxation, growth in waste – corruption, killing opportunity, etc.

    Mr. Obama often sounds like a very typical elite, who has embraced the most fashionable collectivist concepts, which are born from a sincere lack of experience from the real world.

    These Democrats still don’t seem to have done their homework to study the various failures of socialism and communism around the Globe, especially the weakening of Health Care services via a Government run system.

    It is a real tragedy, and often born of taking advantage of emotive empathy, which fails to review the best policy to actually help.

    The USA’s Free Market empowers those to climb out of poverty faster than any other place on the planet – and yet the Democratic Party is ignorantly always trying to destroy this powerful FREE system.

  • http://lowlytuber.blogspot.com tim maguire

    Nice to see Obama has picked up on one of Clinton’s favorite tools–the lawyerly lie. A statement that is designed to deceive, but that nevertheless is in some strained sense true.

    He won’t cover illegal immigrants, he’ll legalize them. There, the problem just goes away. Viola.

    I’m a fan of the high fence, wide gate approach to immigration. We are a nation of immigrants, I like the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, we benefit from their presence and we should welcome all the peaceable ones.

    That said, I am an attorney who does some immigration work (employment visas) and the hurdles we make people jump through to come here legally is absurd and, to me as an American, embarrassing. These are highly skilled, highly educated, cream of the crop-type people I’m talking about who we make spend thousands of dollars, file endless paperwork and wait months or even years to get permission to come here.

    Whatever we should do for the illegal immigrants, it would be a travesty if they end up with better treatment than the ones who does this legally.

  • Bender

    Yeah, there is that problem that we already gave the grandpas of the grandpas amnesty. Meanwhile, just to show what a cold, heartless bastard I am, let me go on to say that we did not do anyone in the home countries any favors or show them authentic charity in doing so.

    What is needed is not amnesty, but fundamental economic change in the home countries. What is needed is not for Mexicans, for example, to come here to leech off our economy, but for Mexico to fix its basketcase of an economic system. There is absolutely no reason why Mexico, with its good and hardworking people, could not have a world-class, top-notch economy, rather than barely reaching the level of the Third World.

    If they want our help, I’m happy for the U.S. Government to help, but that assistance should come by reforming the economic systems in the home countries, and not with illegals coming here and sending money back. All that does is deprive the home country of hard workers who could be the ones to fix their own systems.

    Of course, with a Chavez-cheerleading President, the U.S. may no longer be in a position to advocate for and implement true free market reforms in other countries, but that is, in fact, what is most needed.

  • Bender

    There, the problem just goes away. Viola.

    Well, that’s the idea of solving the “problem” of attaining universal coverage — they are simply going to make it illegal to not have insurance.

  • Bobfan

    “if this report is to believed”

    Where is the report?

    Tim, note my reply to you on the “I Believe Obama rejects . . .” thread.

  • saveliberty

    Wasn’t the number of uninsured restated at 30 million from over 40 million in the more recent speech?

    If he felt so strongly, why didn’t he clarify it then?

  • Pingback: Obama’s Budget and Finance Plans FULLY EXPLAINED!!! « Temple of Mut

  • Joseph Marshall

    “We are in such terrible trouble. Can’t someone get this ADHD-president, who wants to do everything all at once, to take a little Ritalin and focus, focus, focus on JOB CREATION?”

    Anchoress, if your gonna fixate on the guy all the time, you should brush up on what he actually can and can’t do. You may not like what he has to say in a speech or that what he says in one speech is not the quite the same as in another, or that he jumps around from topic to topic, but he is our President and he’s going to be until 2012. If you’re going to ask something of him, in all fairness, it should be something he can do.

    Now, here’s what he can do. He can issue executive orders to the Federal bureaucracy on how to implement existing Federal law. Part of this power is that he can appoint people to tell him what ought to be done, “czars” if you will.

    He can express his opinion about what Congress should be doing to make new Federal law. He can express his opinion about what issues the country needs to address soonest. And he can veto or “pocket veto” laws that he thinks are unwise or otherwise wrong.

    Now, here’s what he can’t do. He can’t issue executive orders beyond the law as the courts are willing to interpret it. If he tries, the courts will slap him down. Recent Presidents have pushed the envelope on this, but if Obama breaks through the envelope, the government will be sued and he will be slapped down.

    As a part of this, he can’t give “czars” any power to implement anything or to order anything. Part of the law makes clear what the chain of command in an agency is. The orders must come from the President, The agency head must approve policies consistent with them [he gets committees to draft them, of course, and has legal assistance to make sure they're consistent with the order and the law] and everybody else in the chain must follow those policies. No “czar” can short circuit this.

    He can’t make Congress do a darn thing. One of the most exasperating things about your posts is that you act as if what he says will happen just because he says it.

    He says he wants one House of Congress to pass a bill before adjournment, and all of a sudden you claim the bill is being “rushed” with inadequate examination. It isn’t. No one person can “rush” a bill through Congress, not the President, not the House Speaker, and not the Majority or Minority Leaders of either house. All the President can do is express an opinion that it ought to be done. Just like you can express an opinion that it oughtn’t.

    And it is merely an opinion, not an order.

    He can’t implement his ideas about what the country needs to have happen by waving a magic wand. And he can’t implement your ideas about it with a magic wand either.

    Finally, he can’t either sign or veto bills that haven’t been passed.

    So, if you want him to focus on “job creation”, what existing law do you want him to act under to do it, and what should he order done?

    If you want him to express opinions about what Congress should do to create jobs, what opinion do you want him to express, and what should he do if Congress ignores it?

    If you want him to tell the press and the public that, “I think job creation is the number one priority,” what do you want him to say next? And are you willing to refrain from calling him inconsistent or a liar because he publicly changed his mind to your way of thinking?

    If there are bills coming down the pike that he could veto that might inhibit job creation what are they?

    Now I don’t agree very much with brooklyn, but he’s headed in the right direction. He’s very clear about what he wants Obama and Congress to avoid. So I’d like to read what he thinks Obama [or anyone] should do to restore “sound economic policy for all in a Free Society.”

    Then we would be getting somewhere beyond merely taking potshots at people you don’t trust or don’t like.

  • http://misskelly.typepad.com Miss Kelly

    Obama? Create jobs? Where did you get that fanciful notion?!

  • John Griffin

    Illegal immigration is the faucet that cannot be turned off without border security, itself a necessary policy for national security reasons alone.

    Illegal immigrants already receive health care for emergency reasons at any hospital and some health care in free clinics. Not the best situation, but hardly anything that merits vitriolic criticism.

    What we’re talking about here in our national debate is whether illegal immigrants should be entitled to seek medical care from physicians in private practice – something they lack due to financial reasons: they can’t afford it and they lack insurance to pay for it.

    Each physician can only see so many people in his/her office each day – there are simply a finite number of appointments in 8 hours.

    So, the real question is whether the American populace is willing to introduce competition into the availability of those office visits or accept the inevitable delays that will occur by permitting (to start) 12 million new people seeking access to their doctor’s office.

    Without border security (which is not on anyone’s radar screen), the premise of universal health care being made available to anyone who enters the US will prompt a torrent of new immigrants who have entered illegally in a desperate quest to share in the American dream.

    If health care for the 12 million here now is worthwhile and part of the moral fabric of our society, why not another 12 million? Or, more?

    That, I fear, will end the dream I have for my children and grandchildren.

  • That One Girl a.k.a. Bender’s Cheerleader

    The government has regulated private industry to death – there is a rule or regulation or tax for every conceivable facet of every industry. If Obama would lower taxes (if he’d even just leave the Bush cuts- which expire soon- intact!) and get the hell out of the way of business, jobs could and would be created. And, they’d be created where and by whom they belong – THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    If I may humbly suggest it, perhaps this is what Anchoress was referring to regarding job creation.

  • J

    I have had two Italian-born hairdressers in the past ten years. Both have USA businesses that are very successful, both married USA citizens and plan on raising their children in the USA with frequent trips to Italy…..but both hairdressers have no regard for the USA, claim they are only here for the money and consider my country inferior to Italy. Are these the kind of immigrants (and they are both legal)you are talking about?

  • Jack B. Nimble

    Joesph Marshall:

    I agree with you that Obama cannot do many things expected of him as the Constitution does not give the president powers sufficient to implement the political agenda you describe. Thank goodness for that. The primary power of the president to “get things done” is not constitutional, rather it is the power of persuasion and influence, which, in Obama’s case has begun to unravel like a cheap suit. Ironically, many of those things that you (defensively) say he cannot do, he promised to do as campaigner Obama and now he is continuing a campaign where presidential leadership is needed. So far, he has not convinced me that he has the leadership capacity needed to be an effective president, perhaps because he still believes in the campaign rhetoric that (unfortunately) got him elected.

  • http://www.antonykolenc.com Antony Barone Kolenc

    Reasonable minds may differ on immigration reform. But have you heard that the President’s administration is going to be defending the public display of a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California, on a sight known as Sunrise Rock? The Supreme Court case is called Salazar v. Buono and will be argued before the Court on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.

    Check out the details on my blog:

  • Joseph Marshall

    If I may humbly suggest it, perhaps this is what Anchoress was referring to regarding job creation.

    Cheerleader, you don’t have to be “humble” about your comments in any way. Any more than I am. Nobody possesses a copyright on “the good ideas”, least of all me.

    Now, Obama can’t lower taxes already in place in the law nor can he stop regulating things that the law mandates he regulate. What he could do is ask Congress to do these things by changing the law and he could commit to signing the passed bills when they arrive at the White House.

    He could also go around the country, go on television, and go to a joint session of Congress to say repeatedly that these things should be done. In other words, he can do everything that he is currently doing to push his own ideas, and not too much more.

    Now, if he were to do this, would the Anchoress [or anybody else here] continue to say, “Obama is just feeding his own ego. Presidents should be seen and not heard.”?

    Would anybody continue to say that someone who shouts “liar” at him in a joint session of Congress is justified for doing it, because Obama is lying and just saying this to make us all feel good?

    And if he happened to mention some other issue like immigration would the Anchoress still call him ADHD and say he should be asking Congress to lower taxes and eliminate regulation 24/7, even when someone asks him directly about immigration?

    And would everybody still continue to demand that he “show leadership” by “doing something” [Which would be what?] that is somehow beyond what any President can actually do?

    Why can’t people just say that Obama, and all the other Democrats have bad ideas, this is the reason why they are bad, and what we actually should be doing is this thing over here?

    The fact that nobody can just do this can only be explained by one thing: personal bias against the man himself.

    Now there could be any number of reasons for this. But it really doesn’t matter what the reasons are as long as you are simply willing to assert, “I just don’t like the man’s style. Here he is showing his style again and it gripes my cookies!”

    It gets a little wearing when people pretend [or genuinely believe, for that matter] that they are actually talking about public issues like health care, immigration, or taxes and regulation, when they are only talking about not liking a man’s style.

  • Joseph Marshall

    “The primary power of the president to “get things done” is not constitutional, rather it is the power of persuasion and influence, which, in Obama’s case has begun to unravel like a cheap suit.”

    Were you or anybody here open to being persuaded in the first place? Or any Republican in Congress? Even by the Archangel Gabriel? I doubt it. I don’t have any trouble being persuaded by Obama. The man is a Democrat, for heaven sake. He is going to have the ideas that Democrats have. And he is going to say that those ideas are what we should follow.

    All this “begun to unravel like a cheap suit” business means is that all the people who wouldn’t be persuaded anyway, or just plain don’t like the man and his style, have gotten so mad about it that they are willing to be terminally rude about it in public.

    They are willing to behave like members of a mob and shout down other people [who are not Obama, by the way] in so called Town Meetings. They are willing to heckle him openly in Congress while he is speaking, or to sanction a Representative doing it.

    I don’t care if Obama said other people lied. There is no reason why Joe Wilson couldn’t have called Obama a liar in his own speech later or in the press conference that he called afterward, if he felt that angry about it. As a responsible member of the United States Congress, he had no business displaying his unfinished adolescence through lack of impulse control in public.

    The House apparently thinks so too. Which does not mean that anybody agrees or disagrees with Joe Wilson’s opinion. It means that they disagree with his rudely acting it out in public in their institution.

    Thank heavens at least some Republicans think this. I might actually even be able to talk to them to their face about their opinions without being abused or insulted when I do, whatever they think of my style privately. So might Obama.

    I also don’t care if Democrats also did a similar thing way back when. If they did, they were just as wrong. I was blogging back then and I may have failed to appreciate this at the time. But, if I did so, I was wrong. I don’t think I failed to do this, but I don’t really care whether I did or not.

    It’s still wrong. When anybody does it. And the House is still right for censuring it. When anybody part of that institution does it.

    As far as this “cheap suit” business goes, it’s time to slap down [once again--it needs to be done about every six to nine months] the annoying hubris that just because the people who aren’t open to persuasion can shout louder than anybody else, that they represent everybody else.

    They don’t represent millions of “real Americans” who are open to persuasion by Obama. And it gets annoying when they start acting as if they are.

    You are part of a political faction. I am part of a different political faction. Neither of our factions are everybody in America, everybody who is adult and responsible [!] in America, everybody intelligent in America, or everybody “real” in America.

    The difference between your faction and mine is that we don’t have to be regularly reminded about it.

  • Jack B. Nimble

    Joesph Marshall:

    I would continue to reply to you but it is obvious to me that you know what I think, have thought and ever will think, so that puts me at a tremendous disadvantage.

    Lets just say I tried to point out something about the nature of the presidency in general and this president in particular and I get a reply that presumes a knowledge of me, the depth of which even those really do who know me d not have.

  • That One Girl a.k.a. Bender’s Cheerleader

    When one presumes to put words in another’s mouth, which Anchoress abhors, I think it best to do so with humility, no?

    Also, I would just like to say that with regard to the townhall meetings and representatives being shouted down ‘mob-style’ or whatever…these representatives are there at our sufferance. If a group who opposes them happens to be larger than a support group, so be it. Seems to me that those shout-downs might just be a precursor to being unelected in the next go-round.

    Also, it is correct that two wrongs don’t make a right, but I believe the most notable lack of civility in this country began with the liberal college students in the 60′s. There were occurances of prominent speakers being shouted off the stage by the students and some professors, especially in California if I recall correctly.

  • Dagwood

    Our president has brought precious little in terms of actual details of his health care reform. At the same time he and his fellow Democrats apparently remain blissfully ignorant of the many Republican proposals that have been killed in committee wholesale, regardless of any merit they may have had.

    Likewise, Mr. Marshall seems to be ready and willing to chalk up the current dissent to nothing more than bias, whether it be political or racial. That ignores the uneasy truth that many of those protesting share valid concerns and rational reasons for their dissatisfaction. That so many have allowed their emotions to rule their sense of decorum certainly is a shame. Conservatives have long valued class and decorum over “cool.” We’re human, but we should never have allowed ourselves to stoop to our political counterparts’ level.

    Mr. Marshall is right in that there are many things that the president can’t do constitutionally. There are, however, many things he doesn’t have to do.

    Our wonderful new “post-partisan” president would rather focus on evil rich people (that apparently includes hard-working small business owners), soul-less doctors who would jump at the chance to hack off your leg or rip out your child’s tonsils in order to pad their already bulging savings accounts (gee, almost sound Winter Soldierish, doesn’t it?), and miserly insurance companies that ration your care (at least when a private company does do, you don’t have to travel abroad to get medical treatment).

    His remedy to provide coverage for the 50 – wait, no make that 40… uh, no, let’s just say 30 million suffering Americans (including all those 20- and 30-something citizens who choose to spend their money on nicer cars or bigger homes instead of on monthly premiums) has not been to formulate ways to help those who are unable to obtain coverage or to guide those who are eligible to the proper channels, but to make subservient to Mama Nation the entire medical and health coverage industries, and an additional 1/6 or more of our hard-earned income along with it.

    I’m sorry, but now my bias is showing. I’m strongly prejudiced against any measures pushed by this Congress and this administration that could restrict our freedoms as never before, while almost certainly pushing our already ailing economy exponentially further into debt. Especially when those who are attempting to foist this program upon us refuse to be subject themselves to the same level of medical care that they are trying to impose. And especially when such programs conveniently won’t really “kick in” until after the next presidential election.