Yeah, but Bachmann voted against the farm subsidy bill – they forgot to mention that in the story. It’s not fair to criticize her for accepting the subsidy she’s entitled to under the law. That’s like criticizing those who advocate higher taxes for not voluntarily paying a higher rate than they have to under the law.

Posted by Will on 23 December 02009 @ 12am

So if Sen. Jim DeMint traded in his car and took advantage of the “cash for clunkers” program—which he called an example of the “stupidity coming out of Washington right now”—he would not be a hypocrite, but just a guy “accepting the subsidy [he's] entitled to under the law”? Much like a congressman who preaches about family values, but has nasty sex with Nevada hookers on the side—is he just a guy “accepting the sex he’s permitted under the law?” :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 December 02009 @ 1pm

Waldo wants Bachmann (who in her role as legislator did vote against the benefits twice – source links here: http://tinyurl.com/bachmannvote) to pay taxes into the system to subsidize other farmers, but to voluntarily forgo benefits paid out by the same system.

I think he’s stumbled upon a brilliant solution for how to make the numbers come out for healthcare reform. We’ll all be obligated to pay in to the system in the form of mandatory insurance purchases. But we can have anyone who thought it was a bad idea to have the government mandate the purchase of a service excluded from receiving any actual healthcare benefits from their policy. Money in, less money out… profit!

Whether the to-be-excluded hypocrites should be identified via some sort of thought “purity pledge” or just by neighbors informing on one another by emailing fishy@healthcare.gov is an implementation detail best left to government professionals.

Posted by Janus on 23 December 02009 @ 3pm

Healthcare? WTF are you even talking about? How did you manage to get this confused in a discussion that’s only two posts long? Would or would not Sen. DeMint be a hypocrite if he participated in “cash for clunkers”?

It’s probably amusing to you to just show up, leave some rude remarks, and then disappear, but how about actually engaging in conversation? Generally, the way that works is that you listen—in this format, read—what other people have said, consider their thoughts, and then respond in context in the same tone as the existing conversation. Give it a shot.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 December 02009 @ 12am

I think you’re the one who has read carelessly, then treated others rudely. My post was in entirely in line with the discussion as follows:

- The central question is whether it is appropriate for someone to participate in a system that they decry. The salient aspect of that question is that it is impossible to opt-out entirely from government systems, since one is legally obligated to pay in to the systems in the form of taxes and other mandated payments. So you are in the position of saying that people who think a particular system is bad should opt-out from any of its benefits, even when they’ve had to pay in.

- You then extended the discussion into other domains by invoking cash-for-clunkers and Nevada brothel sex. Neither is precisely identical to the question of farm subsidies, but both are meaningful analogies for the sake of discussion.

- I then introduced a third analogy that, just like your analogies, was in a new domain while conceptually relevant. This analogy is at least as meaningful as the two that you introduced as follows: Many people will be in the position of having decried mandatory insurance purchase. But when they are legally obligated to do so and do fulfill that obligation, will they then be hypocrites if they use any benefits from the policies they’ve purchased? The question is entirely parallel to the original concept regarding Bachmann.

- Yes, the tone of my post was humorous and satiric. That was to illustrate the absurdity (in Swiftian style) of your original position that people should have to opt out of just the “good” half of systems they don’t like. Again, not much different in nature than your idea that hypothetical brothel sex is applicable to real farm subsidies.

Posted by Janus on 24 December 02009 @ 8am

No, you were a dick about it. We were starting a friendly discussion, and you act like an ass by a) declaring what I think about something that I’ve not said a word about b) sarcastically building on that erroneous assumption by declaring that I’ve “stumbled upon a brilliant solution” to healthcare costs and c) further building on that by implying that supposed system of mine would require that I support a Bush-style peer-surveillance big brother system. You’re telling me what I think, and then insulting me on that basis.

If you weren’t a dick, you’d have had a shot at perhaps changing my mind. Instead, rather than explaining why you think I’m wrong in the tone of the existing conversation, you were rude. As a result, I now I have no interest in anything that you’re saying, because I’m too busy being annoyed. You’ve totally failed in changing any minds. What a waste of time.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 December 02009 @ 10am

Damn, Waldo. Somebody piss in your Wheaties today?

Bachman is hardly a hypocrite for playing by the rules she tried to change. Oh, and by the way… Janus’ comparison to health care is far more relevant to the discussion than your comparison to the clunkers.

Posted by I.Publius on 24 December 02009 @ 10am

Back on topic, I think what makes this so egregious is that it’s Bachmann. This isn’t a case of somebody who merely voted against it, who I would not begrudge participation into that system on that basis alone. Bachmann believes our government is quickly becoming socialist, and that socialism is evil—that it weakens society, it turns citizens into slaves, and that the participation in a socialist system is bad for everybody. Her goal is to “kill socialism”, which is tough to do when actually receiving a check from the government for her participating in the private enterprise of farming. Bachmann didn’t mere vote against this bill—she believes that government handouts in place of free enterprise represent everything that is evil and wretched in this world.

What this reminds me of is Sarah Palin. She’s all about decrying the evils of socialism, yet Alaska is the only state in the union (to my knowledge) that makes regular cash payments to its citizens just for living there. The state has an enormous tax on oil revenue that gets given to its citizens, which is to say that they tax rich, private enterprise and they redistribute that wealth to the comparatively poor. Or “socialism,” as she defines it. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 December 02009 @ 10am

For the record, none of my posts here are issued with the intention of being a dick. Whether they actually have the effect of being a dick to a particular reader can only be decided, I suppose, by that reader. All doorways have two sides… I note that only one of us has resorted to name-calling.

The reference to “fishy@healthcare.gov” was of course a reference to the Obama administration’s actual solicitation of informers to “flag@whitehouse.gov”. It’s interesting and telling to see you characterize this idea as a “Bush-style” effort.

Posted by Janus on 24 December 02009 @ 11am

I had a couple comments, but I REALLY don’t want to get involved in a food fight n Christmas Eve.

So I’ll just say Merry Christmas.

That way I can be accused of not being politically correct. Which would be accurate.

Posted by Jim Owen on 24 December 02009 @ 6pm