Surprise! Henry Waxman cancels hearings for corporate CEO’s who disclosed unpleasant truths about Obamacare
Before the ink had even dried on the health care reform bill, many major corporations announced that the new law would have an adverse impact on their earnings. A peeved Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, demanded the CEO’s of these corporations appear at a show trial before his committee to atone for uttering such heresy against the unequivocal blessings of Obamacare. Unsurprisingly, Waxman has suddenly cancelled the hearings.
Waxman’s initial decision was both precipitous and petulant: was he prepared to vilify these corporations for complying with the mandatory financial disclosure provisions required by both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as federal securities laws? In order to avoid further fallout over the toxic reception Obamacare has received since its enactment, a Democratic colleague, whose head is screwed on straight, must have counseled Waxman against such foolishness. Also, in light of recent polling which has seen both opposition to Obamacare climb after its enactment and the president’s approval ratings continuing to plummet, did Waxman want to remind the nation why Obama and his fellow Democrats are viewed with such disfavor by the electorate?
As the decision to cancel the hearings demonstrates, continuing disclosure of the many unpleasant truths about Obamacare is giving new meaning to the law of unintended consequences. Just recently, the CBO revealed that certain provisions contained in the leviathan 2,700 page bill will mean that members of Congress and their staff may have their health insurance terminated before any alternatives are available. This embarrassing error prompted the New York Timesto remark that, “If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?”
An excellent question…
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
What a complete joke of an article. This is about as substance free as it can get and the voluminous comments show that. Do you even know why the big corporations are complaining about the healthcare bill? It has to do with the closing of a loophole (corporate welfare) that allowed the corporations to deduct more expenses for their employee’s prescription drugs than they had paid out (i.e. not reducing the deduction by the subsidy provided). Do some research dude. Laughable.
Some senator cancels a subcommittee meeting that nobody has even heard about. Conclusion: more Obamacare mischief? Give me a break.
Where are you getting this from? Your primary link is to Beacon Street Journal, a blog that you edit. That blog post in turn refers to an opinion article in Investor’s Business Daily, a right-wing site which is not only unsourced but one that literally compares Henry Waxman to Stalin. Is there any factual basis for anything in this post? Or is it just a bunch of Republicans posturing as heroes against a “petulant” Henry Waxman strawman?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by True/Slant, Ron Bischof. Ron Bischof said: Henry Waxman cancels show trials: http://bit.ly/cDj1lt [...]
Terrific. T/S, where in-house dialogues between bloggers trump reader comments, which are handled more idiotically (initially hidden away when someone accesses a blog page) than I’ve ever seen them handled anywhere else. T/S, where critical observations are treated like troll posts and celebrities and corporations are bowed to by the faux liberals who run the place. T/S, where every last form of -ese takes precedence over communication in English.
So, how could such a place get worse? By adding a right wing shill to the mix.
And yet another site gets me wondering whether the Internet was such a good idea after all.
Try something other than sarcasm, savio. It went out with beige.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, I meant every word. I was feeling overwrought.
It has nothing on the (rejected) rant I wrote to Huffington Post not too long ago. “How dare you??” said part of it, and probably in all caps. I’m sure it provided a nice comedy break for the moderator(s).
Back to here, I do think there’s a concession to celebrity, and too much -ese, and an incredibly flawed comment set-up–to wit, there can be up to 30 comments in a thread with only the contributor comments showing until the “All comments” button is hit four or five times–by those who know to hit it. How this aids or promotes discussion is a mystery to me. I assume it’s part of someone’s concept of interactive.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Surprise! Henry Waxman cancels hearings fοr corporate CEO’s wһο ԁіn… [...]
Interesting. I wasn’t a big fan of this legislation, but if the CEOs of AT&T, Caterpillar, and Valero are upset, maybe Congress did something right after all?
That is, if they really are upset; I presume it’s just a little show for their boards of directors. But a guy can hope.
No surprise here. My reaction when Waxman and Stupak announced the hearings was that they were either ignorant or fools.
For commentors who question the newsworthiness of the article perhaps a better question for you to ask is as follows: How can a Chair of the Commerce Committee not immediately understand that these announcements were required by SEC and FASB regulations? If they were guilty of knowing even less than anyone who has ever taken a business class then they are unqualified to serve in their posts. If they did not believe they would be called on the utter stupidity of convening subpoenas they are fools and again unqualified for their posts. At least Stupak has the good sense to get out.
“No surprise here. My reaction when Waxman and Stupak announced the hearings was that they were either ignorant or fools.”
And no doubt it agonizes you to come to such a conclusion about two Democrats. Probably took you a long time to so do.
In response to another comment. See in context »Always felt that stupidity had no party affiliation. BTW – I meant to say convening hearings, not subpoenas in my original post. My bad.
In response to another comment. See in context »