Via Greg Sargent, Jonathan Bernstein details how the right wing gins up a fake controversy and the wurlitzer pushes it out into the mainstream. In the summer of 2009, it was death panels. Now it's Rep. Michele Bachmann and her imaginary $105 billion secret slush fund, which Bernstein shows is neither hidden, nor slush.
What is a slush fund? I like this "investopedia" definition: "a fund (or something similar) that does not have a designated purpose." By that definition (or any other reasonable one), Bachmann is wrong about that, too. But that's not all; this one is yet another good example of how GOP politicians and GOP media outlets combine to create and spread false claims.
First, Bachmann's claims. To Hannity, she complained about two provisions. One was section 4002 of the bill, which she called a $16B slush fund (the transcript from Hannity says section "402", which doesn't exist, but she's apparently called it 4002 elsewhere). According to the CRS report Politifact relied on, 4002 sets up and funds a "Prevention and Public Health Fund," to be used "for PHSA [Public Health Service Act]-authorized prevention, wellness, and public health activities, including prevention research and health screenings." Anything slushy about that? I don't think so. What's notable about it is that apparently section 4002 provides mandatory funding (that is, unless Congress acts otherwise) rather than yearly appropriations. That's nice for the program, but doesn't in any way at all that I can see give HHS unusual discretion in how to spend the money.
The other example Bachman gives is that "in section 1311[a], she has the right to an unlimited tap on the Treasury Department." (Bachmann, on Hannity, doesn't specifically call it a slush fund, but implies it -- she does say it's worse than the $16B she identifies as a slush fund). CRS explains: this gives the Secretary of HHS authority to give grants to states setting up exchanges. Nothing slushy about it that I can see, either....
This is not unusual for Bachmann; a Google search of "slush fund Bachmann" turns up plenty of wild accusations.... It appears in this case she was working from something from Ernest Instook, which was mainly a practical document about the difficulty of actually defunding ACA.... Bachmann took hold of it, labeling a couple of the items in the CRS report Istook used "slush" funds with no attempt to justify that claim. And then everyone was off to the races.
For example: after the fact checkers clocked in, Heritage reacted with a post titled "PolitiFact, FactCheck, and WaPo All Confirm: The $105 Billion Obamacare Slush Fund Exists." Of course, the fact checkers did no such thing; they only focused on the "hidden" part of it. But notice the slight of hand here: even Bachmann didn't call all $105B of the appropriated moneys a slush fund; she limited that charge to one, specific, $16B subsection. Which wasn't a slush fund, either.
It won't stop Fox News from talking about secret slush funds non-stop, and probably won't stop that from percolating up through the rest of the media with their "some say" reporting. Which is enough for the idea to take hold. This insanity has been in the media for a full week now (and thank you David Gregory, for being witless enough to put Michele Bachmann on Meet the Press in the first place to start all this nonsense). Think it won't happen? Mike Huckabee is still talking about death panels.