It is nonetheless remarkable for its source: Thomas Edsall,
a "contributing op-ed writer" for the New York Times (we surmise that
means he's not on the New York Times Co. health-insurance plan). Edsall
goes on to admit that "recent developments . . . strengthen the most
damaging conservative portrayals of . . . big government"--to wit, that
"too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too
regulatory, too in your face" as well as "incompetent, bureaucratic and
expropriatory."
Which, of course, means it is necessary to change the subject to something more comfortable: race. "The Affordable Care Act
can be construed as a transfer of benefits from Medicare, which serves
an overwhelmingly white population of the elderly--77 percent of
recipients are white--to Obamacare, which will serve a population that is 54.7 percent minority," Edsall writes.
Hmmm, if the ObamaCare population is 54.7% minority, that would make it 45.3% majority. Math is hard.
Predictably,
Edsall goes on to blame opposition to ObamaCare on "a critical mass of
white voters" who have not "moved past [their] resistance to programs
shifting tax dollars and other resources from the middle class to poorer
minorities." If you don't want the government to redistribute your
wealth to somebody else, you must be racist.
It's
telling that in the course of disparaging whites, Edsall also
disparages Medicare, which--along with Social Security--is normally
sacrosanct to American liberals (as well as to many conservatives). As a
political matter, the old-age entitlements are by far the most
successful elements of the American welfare state. That's because
beneficiaries imagine themselves as collecting on their past
"investment," in the form of payroll taxes paid during their working
years.
(Click link below to read more) READ MORE Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment