Friday, August 6, 2010

Taxpayers Money Used to Push ObamaCare With Andy Griffith

$700,000 may not sound like a lot in the scheme of government spending, especially recent levels of government spending. Still, if it should not be done they should not do it regardless of how much it costs.

"Was it not enough for President Obama to saddle future Americans with billions of dollars in new health benefits and entitlements that they simply cannot afford?

He also had to go and corrupt one of America's most beloved figures of the last half-century. And stick you with the $700,000 bill.

Before Obama started pimping him out last week to sell the highly unpopular health-care law, actor Andy Griffith was about as all-American as you could get.

Some Republicans demanded answers and a refund for the tax payers. The administration is defending the spending.

"Here's a letter from five GOP senators to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demanding answers. An excerpt:
We are writing to express our profound concern regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) television ad campaign touting the benefits of the new health care law for seniors. According to press reports, the ad campaign cost taxpayers $700,000.

We request that you cease the ad campaign immediately and reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any expenditure of taxpayer funds related to this effort. We also request you provide documentation outlining which HHS account these funds came from.

We believe this ad is a clear violation of the spirit of federal laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes. The justification for this ad, as expressed by Stephanie Cutter, an Assistant to the President, demonstrates the clear political motivation for the ad.

Ms. Cutter wrote on the White House blog: “As we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, seniors were the target of a major misinformation campaign that was designed to scare and confuse older Americans about the real impact of reform….We are committed to correcting the record and ensuring seniors have the information they need and get the high-quality care they have earned and deserve.”

The Administration’s claim to “correct the record” is misleading and offensive. We can debate the relative merits of the new law, but co-opting public funds during a recession, to make a political, poll-tested argument about the new law, is wrong. While we understand the intensity of the Administration’s faith in this new law, “correcting the record” through the use of a taxpayer-funded ad campaign is highly inappropriate and breaks with the spirit of the law.
They want an answer by tomorrow. Good luck with that.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow