How I Spent My August Recess: Rep. Tom Feeney

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., ran unopposed in 2004. But now that his ties to convicted felon Jack Abramoff are receiving renewed scrutiny, he's seen as politically vulnerable in 2008.

So when Democrats launched an ad campaign informing his constituents that he voted against children's health insurance, he was compelled to respond.

Yesterday, he emailed his constituents a defense of his vote. He relied on the usual misinformation, which local blog Focus on Feeney ably took apart. Smashed Frog piled on as well.

But perhaps with Karl Rove gone, the conservative message discipline has gotten a little shaky.

Focus on Feeney caught the congressman making an extra-special gaffe -- as in, when a politician accidentally reveals the truth.

When trying to criticize the House bill's cut for subsidizing inefficient private insurers in the Medicare Advantage plan, Feeney writes:

In order to pay for this bill, Democrats are cutting funding for free-market Medicare programs.

Focus on Feeney offers the congressman an economics lesson (emphasis original):

Earth to Congressman Tom Feeney: it's not "free-market" if the taxpayer is paying for it! Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of "free-market?"

Free-market: A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

Government funding for private programs is a subsidy. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Feeney. You say your constituents don't want their taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants, I wonder how they'll feel when they find out you want their hard earned money to go to private corporations instead.

By blurting out that he wants to use taxpayer funds to prop up uncompetitive private insurers, Feeney essentially admitted what I noted at the onset of this debate, that "this is not a question of government versus no government." Instead:

This is a question of good government versus bad government.

Bush and fellow conservatives are just fine with government subsidies to prop up Medicare Advantage private plans, even though they cost taxpayers more than the traditional Medicare public plan.

They are just fine keeping the children's insurance program, so long as we underfund it and millions remain uninsured.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future