As I write, I am glancing out the window, looking for airborne swine, for the New York Times today published an op-ed, revealing to its readers for the first time that redistribution of wealth is the engine that powers Obamacare. John Harwood, who works for the Times and CNBC, began by pointing out the Obama administration's aversion to the term "redistribution."

"Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people's minds," said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama's chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it "as a hammer" against Democrats, he said, adding, "It's a word that, in the political world, you just don't use."

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking "socialized medicine." But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.  (snip)

Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge - visible to health policy experts but not the general public - was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.

How on earth did this get through? Is the Times editorial board smarting from the well-deserved ridicule it has received for making excuses for President Obama's lies?

We'll keep an eye on the Times so you don't have to. It remains, for the moment at least,  the most influential media outlet in the United States, signalling the rest of the media what views are acceptable to the establishment left.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky