The New York Times' reporting on federal issues by Dan Alba
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Picture this. You're reading a news story. The topic is local angst over the federal government's plan to take over private properties. But instead of focusing on government policy, the report quotes federal officials and community leaders, all saying they are upset that not everyone received the same federal action. The story mentions neither private property rights and eminent domain nor states' rights; it simply mourns that the federal government didn't gain enough control over some individuals and businesses under its newly expanded domain.
What would that tell you about the editor, the news organization, and its relationship with the U.S. government? What brand of journalism would that be? National interest? State-worship?
With that in mind, have a look at this NYT article: "States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight bill." [1] The title aims at the heart of federalism, but the dialogue and narrative trim hairs. The article misses the mark so badly as to be impossibly ironic. And by impossibly ironic, I mean intentional.
Quoting an industry expert, the NYT relates:
"There is always an issue with Medicaid that different states are in different places," said Diane Rowland, the executive director of the Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Do you reward the leader states as well as the laggard states, the good states versus the bad? How do you equalize the assistance? That’s at the heart of this." [p. 1, para. 7]
In other words, how do you square this equality-driven attempt to cover everyone with its tyrannically inequitable effects?
Let's see. You could go on about the immorality and failure of federal programs; the historical record is not controversial. You could scrutinize federal policy with arguments for the several states' rights and individual rights, a.k.a., negative rights: those which shall not be infringed by the federal government.
But as an editor for a mainstream U.S. news medium, you'll allow neither.
Instead, you will vicariously tell your readers that taxation is really "charity" and not something the feds extract at the point of indomitable force:
"We are, in a sense, being punished for our own charity," Gov. David A. Paterson of New York said last week. [p. 1, para. 10]
And you might even reveal failure and tyranny at the state level:
"You’ll have taxpayers in Arizona raising taxes on themselves not only to support their program, but to cover all the other states expanding," said Thomas J. Betlach, the Medicaid director in Arizona. "I work for an insolvent entity; we can’t afford the program we have." [p. 2, para. 1]
Yet somehow, the most sensible option — removal of the source of inequity, insolvency, and general tyranny — will always escape you and your sources. As with nearly all NYT and AP reportage, there will be no arguments on individual rights, states' rights, the Tenth Amendment, or health care as a product or service and not a right. Simply put, federal policy will not be threatened by legal and moral restraints and common sense.
But think about it. Should a person be forced to buy a good or service? Forced to care for another? Forced to pay for another's misdeeds? Is a "universal burden" better than no burden at all? Should the feds be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as the feds call their actions "necessary and proper" and for "the common good"? Should the government own you?
Yes on all accounts. Reportedly.
It's all a perversion, of course. But such is mainstream journalism: reinforcement of, and tribute to, the corporatist state to which news media are parties.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Alba only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Alba is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
