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?

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. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

by D.R. Tucker

Last month, National Review writer John Derbyshire wrote a piece for The American Conservative entitled “How Radio Wrecks the Right.” In his view, while the current crop of conservative talk radio stars—Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage—were outstanding when it came to energizing people already on the right, they weren’t so great when it came to recruiting new people to the ranks of conservatism.

“…[P]erhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism,” Derbyshire wrote. “There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It’s energizing and fun. What’s wrong is the impression fixed in the minds of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, ‘The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.’ Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development.”

Derbyshire further argued that too often, these stars provide “…Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right.” While these shows are quite popular, Derbyshire noted, they “…don’t know how to speak to that vast segment of the American middle class that lives sensibly—indeed, conservatively—wishes to be thought generous and good, finds everyday politics boring, and has a horror of strong opinions. This untapped constituency might be receptive to interesting radio programs with a conservative slant.”

Derbyshire concluded: “I repeat: There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big. Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism. Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?”

Even if one rejects the characterization of Limbaugh and other talk stars as “carny barkers,” one must acknowledge that there are non-liberals who cannot be reached by the current roster of radio raconteurs. The Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Levin/Savage style just isn’t for everybody.

Derbyshire longs for a more “middlebrow” style of conservative radio. The late Tony Snow demonstrated this style when he used to fill in for Limbaugh. Snow eschewed Limbaugh’s acerbic style, but his strong conservatism always came through on the airwaves. Snow not only reaffirmed the beliefs of conservative listeners, he also gently compelled progressive listeners to take a second look at the veracity of their views. He never came across as someone who loathed liberals or Democrats, merely someone who recognized that conservative ideas were better for the country—and sincerely wanted liberals to understand their ideological errors.

The great Dr. Walter Williams uses a similar style when he fills in for Limbaugh. Williams knows how to calm the most aggrieved liberal soul; with tremendous warmth and humor, he illustrates the logical gaps in progressive philosophy and the intellectual strength of conservatism. He doesn’t need parodies or catchphrases to get his point across: he simply transports wisdom from his mind to his lips, and leaves it to the listener to come to the correct conclusions.

In a March 4 appearance on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg showed that he shares Williams’ gifts. As the lone conservative involved in a discussion of the Rush Limbaugh-Michael Steele feud, Goldberg wowed listeners with his insights about Limbaugh’s legacy and the GOP’s current leadership woes. Goldberg effectively challenged the preconceptions of NPR’s audience: in a tone both firm and civil, he explained the left’s use of Limbaugh as the ultimate bogeyman and the internal warfare on the right between “reform” conservatives (who feel Limbaugh has become a liability to the right) and “traditional” conservatives (who feel Limbaugh’s voice is needed now more than ever). Goldberg was on the show for about forty-five minutes, but one could have listened to him for another three hours.

It’s too bad Williams and Goldberg don’t have full-time national radio shows. There’d be no complaints about lowbrow or downscale conservative talk radio if these brilliant men shared the stage with the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.