Walter E. Williams
Washington's Lies

SHARE THIS:
Share

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin FREE

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians.

Walter E. Williams's Biography
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Join the Debate
153 Comments So Far
« Previous1234567Next »
Roger Wrote: Sep 09, 2009 9:00 PM
Before the government thinks about managing my health care, I would like to see them manage medicare and social security with some level of responsibility. You wouldn't go to the former CEO of Enron and say, "I like what you did with company, take this money I saved and do something good with it."
Allen Wrote: Sep 07, 2009 10:44 AM
They still believe that only Republicans line their pockets.

They still have not put the 2+2 together regarding Democrats and their willingness to line their own pockets at our expense. The most recent example being the bank failures. 60 Minutes almost turned against democrats when they hinted at the facts one week ago this last Sunday. 60 Minutes did a revealing segment on the derivatives markets and correctly pointed out that it was Congress which changed the laws that allowed the banks to go crazy. Of course they did not reveal the role of Steny Hoyer or Charles Schumer democrats. They did not point out that it was Barney Frank's committee which was strongly advocating for more phoney loans and no investigation.

Liberals still want to believe Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are only looking out for the little people. Who LOST? Those three still have their homes and jobs BofA, Citi, Merrill, AIG, GM and Chrysler got covered.

Where are the Obama financial advisors from, Bear Stearns and Citi?

Liberals should wonder what size freezer Chris Dodd has in his home in France, (reference to former Democrat Congressman from Louisiana for you libs who can't figure these things out).

Enrique Wrote: Sep 04, 2009 1:49 AM
I flat out misunderstood.
Robert Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 12:13 PM

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. "

"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15."

"Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Tom Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 11:59 AM
Sounds like our other arch enemy Osama Bin Laden!
Retired Geek from VA Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 10:24 AM

Barack Obama and his Cultic Followers and Worshipers, insist that a 'Female' has the 'Right' to choose whether or NOT to kill her baby and her choice has a 'Right' to privacy.

Liberals Insist that Homosexuals have the 'Right' to choose their 'Lifestyle' and deserve the 'Right' to marry, even if that 'Right' vulgarizes the 'Marriage' of millions of others.

Liberals further Insist that Homosexuals have the 'Right' to privacy concerning HIV/AIDS, even though HIV/AIDS is an epidemic in America (HIV/AIDS cannot even be listed as a Cause of Death legally).

Liberals then Insist that American Citizens DO NOT have the 'Right' to choose the Schools their children attend.

Liberals then Insist that American Citizens DO NOT have the 'Right' to Privacy about their Health Records and Private Health Care records must be turned over to Government Agencies and may be subject to exposure by the 'Freedom of Information Act' (unless they are Homosexuals and have HIV/AIDS).

Individual 'Choice' to a Liberal is 'Situational' and will be decided by a Government Worker or 'Fiat of Government'.
Enrique Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 10:22 AM
Wow. That was awsome.
It also shows whose side they are on (between good and evil)
Retired Geek from VA Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 9:53 AM

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for your Country - ask what you can do for Barack Obama.

This is the theme of the Barack Obama Administration and his Liberal Worshipers.
Retired Geek from VA Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 9:26 AM

'Cognitive Dissonance' is a 'Serious Mental Disorder' that holds two or more diametrically opposed views of 'Reality' as the 'Singularity of Reality'.

ObamaCare proposes that life lengthening care for seniors, the seriously handicapped or those suffering from Cancer or other serious illnesses, is simply to expensive for someone who MAY no longer make a 'Positive Contribution' to society - which is unproven.

Then the Liberal 'Cognitive Dissonance'.

Liberals stand steadfast on their opposition to the 'Death Penalty' of those who have 'Proven' that they have NOT made a 'Positive Contribution' to society.

Liberals INSIST that that we house, feed, clothe, provide cable TV, internet access and provide medical care for serial killers, murderers, rapists and the very 'Dregs' of Society residing on 'Death Row'.

Why??

Liberals 'Insist' that those who have been judged 'Guilty' by law and a jury of their peers, may someday make a 'Positive Contribution' to society and may NOT be guilty - therefore ANY COST is reasonable.

Liberals then 'Insist' that those who are NOT guilty of anything but being Elderly, Handicapped or Seriously Ill, have proven beyond a 'Shadow of a Doubt' that they WILL NOT make a 'Positive Contribution' to society and ANY COST is unreasonable.
EARL Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 9:23 AM
So government schools are no good, government Medicare/Medicaid is no good, government Social Security is no good, government progressive taxation is no good. The Progressive Liberals have established these as the backbone of our country. Can we save this country by removing its backbone. Solutions anyone??
cyborg3k Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 8:28 AM
How anyone can believe what a cRat says anymore is beyond me. Since around 1980, I haven't heard one speak for more than a minute without telling a lie.
Retired Geek from VA Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 8:24 AM

Any decision and subsequent actions based on those decisions, become a direct reflection of a Humans cognitive abilities, character and essential nature.

Many American Citizens 'Invested Themselves' in the candidacy of Barack Obama, by directly voting for him or by a 'Proxy Vote' (voting for a third party candidate who had NO chance of winning) and are NOW facing the dilemma of having to account to themselves and others about their 'Bad Decision'.

It is Human Nature to defend 'Bad Decisions', even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Barack Obama has always been a 'Motivator' and has never been a leader and in probability will never be a leader.

Leadership is based in self-sacrifice, directing and leading the way, motivation revolves around 'Self-interest' of the person being motivated or the the 'Self-Interests' of the Motivator.

Barack Obama presented himself as someone who could 'Heal the Racial Problems' in America, even though Obama himself had a long history of 'Black Separatism' and creating 'Racial Strife'.

The MSM and Obama supporters stated repeatedly, that Obama's lack of 'Business Experience' would and could be overcome by surrounding himself with the astute - even though Barack Obama had a long history of choosing only 'Radicals' and America haters for his friends and alliances.

Continuing to believe that voting for Barack Obama was a 'Good Decision' is irrational and trying to justify that 'Bad Decision' is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to appear rational, save face and delay the consequences of poor judgment and action.

Defending Barack Obama is irrational and a 'Hopeless Project', when in reality defending Barack Obama is simply a cover-up of self deception and wishful thinking.
Globug Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 8:17 AM
I totally agree with you, I just didn't want to ramble. A lot of Republicans are Liberal because they want to be accepted by their peers. Did you know there is a blog of Republicans boycotting WND? I don't agree with a lot of WND'S conspiracy theories but I sure will not boycott their free speech. I am a registered Democrat but not in spirit.I am not a Republican, I am just a American that thinks my leaders should uphold and defend the constitution that they swear to uphold.
Barack-A-Boo-Boob Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 7:56 AM

Great. but the problem is not Democrats or Republicans.

The problem is Liberals in both parties that are hurting the people.

Liberals are not rational people. They complain about Federal Government response to Katrina and yet want to trust our healthcare to the Federal Government.

In 1970 they complained about a coming "Ice age" by the year 2000.

In the year 2000 they then compained about Global Warming.

When LBJ created the "Great Society", America had less than 300,000 people incarcerated. We began all kinds of social programs to fight poverty, create greater social justice, improve education etc. etc.

Today we now have over 2 million Americans incarcerated in prison.

Its not Democrats or Republicans who are hurting society. Its Liberals in both parties.

Globug Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 7:19 AM
As a young foolish person of 20 something, I voted for Carter, then came Reagan & Rush Limbaugh . Before them I ran with the crowd to be accepted by my peers. When Reagan told the USSR to tear down the wall and the Democrats criticized him for it, i knew then that the American Democrat Party had an agenda that did not include individual freedom. Love him or hate him Rush Limbaugh was the beginning of the end of a total Liberal view in our country.
Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 5:07 AM
Both your handle and your admission that you enjoy making money by "screwing" people (even if "indirectly") explain your support for Obama.
Serpentdove Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 2:47 AM
I am not sure I understand your challenge. My post was as conservative as they come. I just acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with being proud and being a liberal. Note that inside of my comment is a quote of another poster on here calling himself "proud liberal". I was addressing my comments to him. That is not me. These are just labels anyway. I would be a liberal in the Jeffersonian sense: Small government is best. Citizen ownership of guns is necessary for a people to remain free. Abortion is murder. What else would you like? It is ok to be a liberal as long as you don't intend to hang my speech in the noose of political correctness.
Enrique Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 2:24 AM
I´m curious to hear how you describe the characteristics that make you a liberal. Do that for me, and I will describe what makes me a conservative. I think I can surprise you. Let´s have some fun.
Serpentdove Wrote: Sep 03, 2009 12:24 AM
Nothing wrong with being proud and liberal, but when you say "This whole conservative movement in health care is actually an anti-democracy movement. You lost the election but you want to take down the democratically elected winners" you misunderstand the issue here being debated. It is the ONE elected taking down democracy, just as Adolph Hitler, duly elected, took down Germany. That is what so many here are decrying. Obama came out against the Honduran president being ousted. Problem was that the Honduran president, though duly elected, then ran past the constutition which gave him that position and the military, which did not take power after ousting him, submitted itself again to the constitution. What you are saying is that if the majority wants to have a King, it is their perogative. What if in that election, the wolf was elected as a sheep and is just now taking off his dirty fleece and the real fleece is happening to us? You confuse democracy with fleecing, but people are waking up to having been taken, but it takes time to admit to stupidity.
Serpentdove Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 10:22 PM
Love the quotes about guns. Am printing them out. You did all the work. Would like to see you spread them all over TH. We all need to read what the founders REALLY thought - and so does anyone have any question about what they thought/intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment? THE BS about they meant for the army is just the tyrants propaganda. Right to bear arms meant the right of EVERY ONE OF US to own firearms. Well, maybe not if you are in prison doing time for a felony. But otherwise it is not about the army having guns. It is about YOU AND ME.
Thanks for all your diligent work. Also, great satires. Very much appreciated. And Geek. You too. And others here.
Robert Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 9:45 PM
This may shock you but I am a college graduate and I'm literate enough to read the Constitution for myself. Since I keep a wallet size copy of it on my person, I don't need to imagine what it says.

In case you haven't noticed, it's the year 2009. Don't get stuck on stupid by thinking you can right the wrongs of the past. The past is past; a fact that you'd better come to grips with if you want to live in the here & now.

I'm a rugged individualist. I'm for god, guns and country. I'd rather die a free man than live under the tyranny of self righteous miscreants who think they know what's best for me and everyone else for that matter.

"You're either with us or with the oligarchs." Us? Who's "us"? Are you kidding? Look, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, ok?

Primus54 from Ohio Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 9:16 PM
"I didn't make it personally, I benefitted from the profits of those who did. It was in the best conservative tradition: worhip money, hate government, lie, lie, lie.

After the things I've read and seen during this most recent debate, there is nothing that could make me feel guilty - people like you are fighting to get screwed by people like us."
-----

Contrary to your protestations, it sounds like you feel VERY GUILTY for benefiting so greatly from the evils of others.

I'm sure there are ex-Bernie Madoff and ex-Enron workers who feel the same way because their ONLY experience was working for one of the few bad apples in the barrel.

You may be coming from the same "place", but I am quite certain that the MAJORITY of insurers and free-enterprisers are not the evil capitalists you depict and despise.

If the "dirt" on your wealth bothers you so much, I'd be happy to recommend some very outstanding, excellent charities where you can assuage your conscience...

But I won't hold my breath.
Saint-Denis Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 9:02 PM

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

- Hillary Clinton
Proud Liberal Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 8:55 PM
Those anti-levelers Mick were anti-democratic, just as conservatives are today. Those yellers and screamers are today's anti-levelers. Remember that a significant portion of the oligarchs wanted to take Washington as their monarch. Some testament to democracy by the Founders, eh Mick.

This whole conservative movement in health care is actually an anti-democracy movement. You lost the election but you want to take down the democratically elected winners.

This is childish, Mick.
Saint-Denis Wrote: Sep 02, 2009 8:18 PM

Yes, but the lesbos would want to know if the "comfortable shoes" made their arzes look big.
« Previous1234567Next »