Our View - Tuesday

UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE
Revival aimed at conservative radio

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently has decided there won't be a vote this year to permanently prevent the government from imposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. In fact, Pelosi favors re-establishing the doctrine, which would elevate government as the final arbiter of what's fair in major portions of public discourse. In a nation founded on the principle of freedom from government control, we have strayed far when government presumes to regulate free speech. Pelosi has made it clear she favors such an infringement by once again establishing the misnamed Fairness Doctrine for broadcast media.

The doctrine would require television and radio stations to provide equal time to opposing points of view on controversial issues. It was abolished by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 when there were far fewer media outlets. The doctrine was a bad idea then. It's worse today.

One might be able to make an argument that when there were a few, limited wavelengths in the broadcast spectrum the Fairness Doctrine had a place to ensure everyone got their say. It's a different story today. It's preposterous to claim any point of view needs the government's help to reach the public in light of the proliferation of new media outlets, hundreds of cable television stations, 14,000 radio stations, an ever-growing number of Web sites, an estimated 10 million blogs and constantly streaming Internet video and audio.

In fact, before it was abolished, the doctrine had the opposite of its intended effect, limiting rather than expanding public discourse, because broadcasters minimized controversial programming out of fear that the government would require they provide "the other" side of the story.

Worse yet, it also made a farce of free speech. Since when are there only two sides? There are as many arguments as there are points of view. What broadcaster feasibly could provide "equal time" on even one topic to Democrats, Republicans, American Independents, Socialists, Libertarians, Greens or any variation of those and myriad other political viewpoints? Fearful of paying huge fines or even losing their broadcast licenses, it's no wonder broadcasters watered down content to avoid controversy.

We shudder at the effect such a doctrine could have on religious broadcasting. Would Methodists and Muslims and animists have legitimate claim to rebut a Baptist broadcast on a station owned and operated by Baptists? Do we want the government making that call?

But even if it were workable, it's utterly Orwellian for the government to impose arbitrary standards on public discourse among private broadcasters.

Clearly, the liberal Pelosi sees an opportunity to suppress popular conservative talk shows that have proliferated and flourished since the doctrine died. Had liberal talk shows multiplied and prospered, we doubt she would be as eager to impose government control.

The Broadcaster Freedom Act would permanently prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being resurrected. Its backers say there are enough votes to pass - if the measure reaches the House floor for a vote. We call on Pelosi to allow the vote, or for the necessary 22 additional representatives to join the 196 who already have signed a petition to circumvent her obstruction and permit the vote. It's only fair.

COST OF ‘FREE' HEALTH CARE

If government attempts to provide "free" health care, one can expect a bureaucrat will decide what health care anyone receives. And we can all expect serious rationing, in the form of weeks-long waiting lists and all-out denials of requests for reasonable services. Financially, "free" health care just won't work.

Look only to California for a preview of what socialized medicine might look like in the very near future. The state's independent legislative analyst says the latest proposal to impose universal health care on Californians would cost far more than even the astronomical prices its advocates originally claimed, and much more than even steep new taxes would raise.

How much more? The state budget is about $17 billion in the red. That's a lot of money. But proposed universal, government-run health care is estimated by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill to run $26 billion in the red in its first year, 2010-11.

It doesn't stop there. In 2011-2012, the first full year of the government-run system, the deficit would balloon to $42 billion. After five full years of operation, the deficit would increase to a mind-boggling $46 billion. By comparison, a 2005 private study of an almost identical previous bill projected a $29 billion savings over current health care spending, and no deficit.

But it doesn't stop there, either.

This gargantuan deficit results from the legislative analyst penciling out the "financing mechanism" submitted by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Democrat author of Senate Bill 840, the legislation to impose universal health care. ("Financing mechanism" is bureaucratese for "taxes.") Hill said substantial new taxes on payrolls, on the self-employed and on wages would raise $138 billion by 2015-16. Raising revenue, of course, means reducing the incomes and welfare of people the money belongs to.

Even after soaking taxpayers for an additional $138 billion, the universal health care scheme still would fall $46 billion short of paying its bills. Guess what government will do when costs exceed income? If you guessed it will restrict medical services, you guessed right. Either that, or seek to increase taxes even more.

And if you guess it doesn't stop there, you guess right again. There are other unintended consequences of Kuehl's plan. The legislative analyst says these new taxes will have adverse effects, resulting in small families and higher-income earners paying more than they do now for health care, and perhaps spurring an exodus of doctors out of state, aggravating what already may be a California physician shortage.

That's not even all the bad news. Private insurance companies would be prohibited from selling coverage for anything the state covers. The question of what ultimately is to be covered by the government plan ostensibly would be made by health care providers with "certain limitations." In effect, private health insurance coverage would be abolished, and insurers likely would close as all Californians are forced into government coverage. Budgets for hospitals and doctors would be dictated by a new state oligarchy of bureaucrats.

"Is that all?" you might ask. No, there's more. The legislative analyst forecasts the economic drain would further reduce tax revenue for the state budget, which you may recall already is $17 billion in the hole.

One more thing. Hill's analysis suggests it's likely universal health care will lure out-of-staters into California to take advantage of the "free" medical services. More folks to line up for "free" handouts.

Universal, government-run, government-dictated health care makes about as much sense as do-it-yourself brain surgery. California incubates lots of goofy ideas. But this one didn't start there, and it likely won't end there. No place can afford "free" health care for all of humanity. As P.J. O'Rourke noted, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."