This commentary was contributed by Commonweal Institute Advisor Patrick O'Heffernan.

The liberal blogosphere has been buzzing about Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst at the President last night during Obama's address to a joint session.  A diary on dailykos accuses Wilson of adopting "tea bagger tactics" and calls on “kossacks” to donate to the campaign of Rob Miller, his presumptive political opponent. The Huffington Post featured an unflattering photo of Wilson and the headline, "A Muzzle for Old Yeller", plus an analysis of his allegation.

The remark was definitely an embarrassment, both for Wilson and for the Republican Party.  Vice President Biden told ABC's Good Morning America, “I was embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love. It demeaned the institution.”  Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, told the New York Times “I think we ought to treat the president with respect, and anything other than that is not appropriate.”  House Republican Whip Eric I. Cantor of Virginia told ABC on Thursday: “Obviously, the president of the United States is always welcome on Capitol Hill. He deserves respect and decorum.” 

Wilson has apologized to the President and Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, has accepted the apology on behalf of the President.

But Wilson's outburst raises two questions:  (1) Was this a beach of ethics that deserves to be punished, and (2) Was he right or wrong in saying the President "lies" when he said that his plan would not provide subsidized health care to illegal aliens?

First, ethics.  It was certainly a breach of protocol, as Rep. Cantor and others on both sides of the aisle have pointed out and Wilson has admitted.  I was not able to find any specific provision in the House Rules that covers shouting at the President during a joint session speech.  I have also not seen any calls for his investigation by the House Ethics Committee and I noticed that, while furious, Speaker Pelosi did not gavel him down.

This does not mean he won't be punished.  Being condemned in public by his own party is bad enough.  But, according to Jessica Santillo of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as of this afternoon, 12,000 individual donors had sent over $540,000 to the campaign of Rob Miller, Wilson's presumptive opponent in the 2010 election. Wilson won the seat in 2008 against Miller by only 8 points. If a substantial number of the donations came from within Wilson's district – and Santillo did know if they did or not – this may cost Wilson his seat -- a cautionary tale for Republicans who were planning on turning Wilson into a Joe-the-Plumber type hero.

The second question is: Was the President's statement true?  Yes, it was.

The President said: “Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false… (pause at Wilson's outburst)… the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

The President's claim that the legislation would not allow illegal immigrants to obtain government subsidies meant for low-income individuals and families to buy health insurance is correct.  The current House bill specifically excludes undocumented aliens in Sec. 246. No Federal payment for undocumented aliens. The legislation is still being developed and many details can and will change, but Obama's proposals have been clear that the legislation he wants will exclude undocumented aliens from receiving tax subsidies for insurance.  Wilson is wrong.

So why do conservative advocacy groups run ads saying the President's proposed reforms will give tax dollars to illegal aliens?

I think there are two reasons: they are just cynically lying; and – as with all things legislative and human – the situation is not black and white.

First, the cynicism.  Conservative advocacy groups funded by insurance companies are well aware that a percentage of their constituents are anti-immigrant.  In an effort to excite this portion of their base, they make the false claim that American tax dollars will support health care for illegals.  This is guaranteed to get traction on conservative talk radio, blogs and town halls.  Unfortunately, that's politics in America today – tell a lie loud enough and long enough and Fox News (or a liberal blog) will repeat it as truth and then it no longer matters (unless you shout "lie" at the President on national television).

More interesting is the basis for the claim of insurance subsidies for illegals.   Republicans have a number of arguments:

1.  The stipulation against undocumented aliens receiving subsidies can't be enforced.  That depends on the subsidies.  If they are tax credits, the IRS has enforcement mechanisms to prevent undocumented aliens from claiming they are eligible.  The same presumably would apply to checks – no Social Security number, no check.

 But it is true that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that nothing would prevent undocumented immigrants from purchasing public option insurance through the proposed exchange.  They would not receive any taxpayer subsidies, but they would get cheaper government insurance – which Republicans object to and use as the basis for their claims that Obama wants to give insurance to undocumented aliens.   Of course, they could buy private insurance, which they can do now.   They would be exempt from the requirement that they buy insurance at all (since they are illegal) and presumably couldn't afford because they received no tax subsidies.  Unfortunately, under the current House bill legal aliens would be required to buy insurance but would also be excluded from subsidies – hardly fair.

2.  Life is complicated.  The CRS also notes that the undocumented parents of a child who is a citizen can buy public option insurance and the child could receive subsidies, but the parents would not.  And the legal spouse of an immigrant who had not yet completed the naturalization process (would thus be undocumented) could get subsidies, but the spouse could not.  And some illegal aliens, like victims of trafficking or violence or illegals engaged to Americans or immigrants with applications pending for three years might qualify for subsidies under other statutes.

3.  Expansion of Medicaid.  The proposed bill would expand the eligibility for Medicaid to childless adults earning 133% of the poverty level, which the CRS says could increase the number of non-citizens who could receive Medicaid benefits.  Under current law, some illegal aliens might qualify for Medicaid.  This has been a source of friction between Democrats and Republicans for some time, and until the eligibility question is settled, will only get worse as reform bills move forward.

The bottom line:  there are some issues to clarify, but the President's intent and the current House bill's language are clearly designed to exclude undocumented aliens from tax-payer subsidies for medical insurance.  Wilson was wrong, the President was right.

If you stick to the facts, you won't get into trouble.  And mind your manners.