For all the rancor and disagreement in Washington, columnists, policy analysts, and bloggers rarely explicitly call each other liars. They disagree with each other every day, and even imply some bad faith now and again. But it’s rare to simply call someone out as a liar.
Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein chose the wrong time to cross that line, because his August 7 column accusing Republicans of propagating lies regarding Democratic health proposals is almost entirely devoid of substance. Despite calling Republicans “political terrorists,” not only does Pearlstein’s column fail to establish that Republican claims are deliberate lies, it fails to show that these claims are even incorrect. It’s not obvious exactly who these liars are, and—as the column slips into incoherence—sometimes not even clear precisely what these lies are supposed to be:
There is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the healthcare system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.
The reason, he says, is that it’s unlikely that any health legislation that’s actually passed will contain a strong “public option” that would compete, unfairly Republicans say, with private health insurers.
Now, President Obama has many times stated his support for a public option, and the House Democrats’ Progressive Caucus recently stated that it will oppose any reform that doesn’t include a public option charging Medicare rates—an approach the Lewin Group projects could lead to most Americans ultimately shifting to the public option. Likewise, some fear a slippery slope, such that—like Medicaid—the public option would grow over time. Those fears are hardly quieted by comments such as those from Rep. Barney Frank saying that the public option is the best route to a single payer health system, and from then-Sen. Obama himself making the same argument.
Of course, perhaps the reason any legislation that passes Congress is less likely to contain a strong public option is precisely because Republicans have made the public aware of the above facts.
But no, Pearlstein argues, only a liar could say that health reform could lead to an effective government takeover of private markets.
Likewise, Pearlstein says “you’ve probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.” Why a lie? Because those trillion dollar cost estimates are measured over 10 years, per budgetary convention, not over a single year. Now, did any Republicans actually say the health plan would cost $1 trillion per year? If so, Pearlstein doesn’t quote them. Moreover, are Republicans the only ones who cite costs over 10 years? Here, even Pearlstein admits that everyone in Washington uses 10-year budget estimates. But not everyone’s a liar, of course: only those Republicans.
Pearlstein goes on to say, “While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of healthcare people consume or the prices paid to healthcare providers—the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.”
As it turns out, Republicans have sponsored a number of bills that would help reduce health costs—from the bipartisan plan sponsored by Senators Robert Bennett (R-ID) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) comprehensive entitlement and tax reform plan, to Sen. Jim DeMint’s plan to allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines. And in the last presidential election Sen. John McCain argued for eliminating the tax preference for employer sponsored healthcare—which most economists think is the single best step toward containing costs—but of course that idea was battered by $44 million in attack ads by the man currently in the White House.
The only difference between these Republican health plans and the ones Pearlstein seems to support is that the former might actually cut health costs, while Pearlstein’s favorites have all been shown to “bend the cost curve” in the wrong direction.
It goes on from there. But the larger point is that when you shift from saying “I disagree” to “you’re a liar” you’ve upped the ante considerably. In that case, you should be sure you’re actually holding the right cards.