Which in turn implies the absurd (but apparently widely-held) view that Medicare and Medicaid are not now government programs. So why is he making a prediction about our future perceptions of their quality? The only sensible construal is that these programs will change their nature when the government takes them over. And thus in his next clause, "just wait till you see Y", for Y = "Medicare, Medicaid, and health care, done by the government", he's predicting that Y will turn out to be even worse than those icons of awfulness.īut Medicare, Medicaid, and health care already exist, as Laffer's hearers know well. When he says "If you like X", for X = "the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles", he's suggesting that many people view the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles as bad - and indeed these are standard objects of right-wing scorn, disdained as bloated, inefficient and unhelpful bureaucracies. Laffer's statement is clearly an instance of this rhetorical template being used ironically. This implies that you're not already familiar with Y, or that Y will change in some way that will affect your evalution. This can be used straight ("If you like the single, just wait til you see the video") or ironically ("Government: If you like the problems we cause, just wait 'til you see our solutions!") But in either case, the author suggests that X is viewed by many as good (or bad, in the ironic case), and predicts that if you're one of those that share that view, then Y will turn out to be even better (or even worse, in the ironic case). Laffer is using a common rhetorical pattern of the form This makes no syntactic, semantic, rhetorical, or phonetic sense. "Done by the government," that is, modifies only "health care," not "Medicare, Medicaid, and health care." Laffer seems to me to be saying that Medicare and Medicaid are not run well, and neither will health care in general when the government expands its role in it. I think this is a simple misunderstanding. Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO (" Re: Hands Off Medicare", ) compounded the confusion by making an implausible linguistic argument in Laffer's defense:
"Now don't you let the government get a hold of my Medicare." Breaux, ever the charmer, smiled and said reassuringly of this greatest of government entitlement programs, "Oh, no, we won't let the government touch your Medicare."Īnd Matthews commented, "I don't believe I have to explain what this says about the Republican economic policy elite" - which is a bit confusing, because John Breaux was a Democratic senator. "Senator, Senator," she said, plucking emotionally at his sleeve. was walking through the New Orleans airport, returning home, when an elderly female constituent approached him. I mean, i- i- i- if you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles, and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care, done by the government.ĭylan Matthews at The Treatment (" Now Don't You Let The Government Get A Hold Of My Medicare", ) compared this to an earlier example of conservative pandering to public ignorance: You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. About a week ago, Arthur Laffer said the following on CNN:Īudio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip.
0 kommentar(er)
