The Obama administration has plenty of public money on hand to sell the castor oil that is ObamaCare. Trouble is, it isn't having much luck convincing Americans to gag it down.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal a taxpayer-funded multimedia campaign -- up to $200 million -- to advance ObamaCare along with other Health and Human Services initiatives. Must be part of President Barack Obama's ingenious plan to reduce the federal deficit by spending more money.
And obviously, using Andy Griffith as a pitchman in three Medicare TV ads (total cost, $3 million) didn't do the trick.
There is nothing remotely "educational" about advertising designed to force "behavioral changes on Americans," says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This Big Brother campaign is most certainly underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped."
It's also a multimillion-dollar waste. A new Associated Press-GfK Poll shows support for President Obama's health care overhaul is at its lowest level (35 percent) since passage, with opposition at 45 percent. Among seniors, support has dipped below 30 percent for the first time in AP-GfK polling.
For congressional budget cutters, ObamaCare's ad nauseam campaign is low-hanging fruit that's rotten to the core.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.