BCT Editorial – 3/27/05

This page was last updated on March 27, 2005.

Name game; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 27, 2005.

Another anti-Bush and anti-Republican rant by the editorial writers of the Times. What’s hysterical – and hypocritical – is the editorial would be cheering Democrats for these same actions.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The Terri Schiavo case has put to rest forever the myth that President Bush and big government Republicans are conservatives.

“As this incident and many others show, they are the antithesis of true conservatism.”

[RWC] Apparently the editorial writer isn’t familiar with the definition of antithesis. In the editorial’s context, the definition of antithesis is “the direct opposite.” The direct opposite of conservatism is communism/fascism/liberalism/Marxism/Nazism/progressivism/socialism. Though “President Bush and big government Republicans” are not my idea of true conservatives, they are a long, long way from the likes of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), et cetera.

“Allan Lichtman, who chairs the history department at American University in Washington, made that point in an Associated Press story.

“Lichtman said the decision of Bush and Congress to interfere in the Schiavo case ‘contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government.’”

[RWC] The editorial fails to describe what Congress did. Congress passed a law allowing Ms. Schiavo’s parents the right to appeal to the federal courts to make sure Ms. Schiavo’s rights had not been violated. Other than granting jurisdiction to the federal courts for this single case – allowed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Congress did not do anything to predetermine an outcome. All Congress asked for was a review by a federal court. As of this writing, all appeals by Ms. Schiavo’s parents to federal courts – including the Supreme Court – have failed.

The editorial also ignores the nature of the case. We’re not talking about the feds telling a municipality how to pave its roads. The natural family of a helpless woman didn’t want her starved and dehydrated to death and sought help from Congress. For argument sake, let’s say the Congressional action violated what the Times views as a conservative principle. If it was a “violation,” it was extremely limited and didn’t force a predetermined result. I don’t have a problem with an exception intended to protect the rights of a helpless person.

“This is just the tip of the big-government iceberg.”

[RWC] As the editorial whines about “big government,” keep in mind Times editorials support big government at every turn. One example is total state funding of public schools. Another example is so-called “universal healthcare.” As a result, it’s hard for me to take the editorial’s “big government” complaints seriously.

“The Patriot Act strips individual Americans of constitutionally protected rights and gives the executive branch far too much discretion and leeway in determining how the act is interpreted and implemented.”

[RWC] Too bad the editorial didn’t provide any evidence to support its claim.

Even if the editorial’s claim were true, it ignores the following. All Senate Democrats except two – one voted against and one did not vote – voted for the Patriot Act. In the House, 69% of Democrats supported the bill.

“The Medicare prescription drug plan represents the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society of the mid-’60s.”

[RWC] You’ll get no argument from me on this. I opposed the plan – and Medicare in general – and I let my representatives know it. That said, isn’t the Times always lobbying for universal healthcare?

The editorial ignores the fact that Republican proposals to fix Socialist Security attempt to correct some of its welfare-like properties.

“The No Child Left Behind Act has the federal government mandating standards, rules and regulations to states and local school boards (and then not coming through with the money to fully fund these mandates).”

[RWC] I have to characterize this sentence as a lie or gross ignorance of the Constitution. The NCLBA is voluntary and I can’t believe any legitimate newspaper isn’t aware of that fact. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution delegates no education powers to the federal government. As a result, the federal government cannot mandate “standards, rules and regulations to states and local school boards.” Schools and states don’t have to follow federal rules when they don’t accept federal education dollars. Check the various education acts – including the NCLBA – if you have doubts.

I agree President Bush and Republicans should not have expanded the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 upon which the NCLBA was based. Given the Constitution assigns no education responsibility to the federal government, President Bush and Republicans should have begun to phase out federal involvement in education, not expand it.

“The massive deficits the president and GOP-controlled Congress are piling up not only represent a tax increase on future generations of Americans, but they also are a national security issue because much of the debt is being bought up by central banks of other countries, especially China and Japan.”

[RWC] I wish I had the time to research editorials from when Democrats were doing the same thing. I generally oppose deficit spending, but I’m not a hypocrite about it. That is, I don’t think they’re bad only when the other guys are in control.

“Like their liberal counterparts, Bush and big-government Republicans have no qualms about using the federal tax code to promote their ideological and social agendas and to reward special-interests and corporations that back them politically.”

[RWC] Regarding the allegation that “Bush and big-government Republicans have no qualms about using the federal tax code … to reward special-interests and corporations that back them politically,” too bad the editorial didn’t provide any evidence to support its claim.

The part about “ideological and social agendas,” of course that’s true. For example, it you believe it’s wrong to soak one group of citizens but allow another group to get off without paying any taxes at all, you’ll correct the tax code. How is that wrong? We vote for people because we expect them to implement the agendas they campaign on.

“Fiscal prudence and responsibility are jokes. Spend-and-borrow big government Republicans have no qualms about Enroning the books to hide the massive deficits they are piling on future generations of Americans.”

[RWC] This is pretty close to lying. Enron used illegal means to hide its business dealings. As far as I’ve seen, Republicans have not done anything illegal in this area and always mention what their budget figures include and exclude. I like everything in the same budget, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate Republicans are trying to hide anything. If they were, that would be wrong.

“A Congress controlled by people calling themselves conservatives is trampling on the concept of federalism by preempting states’ power. (Tax on Internet sales and regulation of the insurance business are but two examples.)”

[RWC] I can’t speak for Republicans in Congress, but I don’t refer to them as conservatives, though there are a few exceptions.

Regarding “Tax on Internet sales,” the editorial refers to a couple of bills that would make permanent the ban on state and local sales taxes for purchases on the Internet. The original ban went into effect during the Clinton administration. The original ban expired in 2001 and was extended two years by President Bush. The ban extension expired in 2003 and the ban has not been renewed, yet.

Regarding insurance regulation, here’s what my research turned up. On July 8, 2003, Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) introduced the “Insurance Consumer Protection Act of 2003.” The intent of the bill was to provide federal regulation of insurance companies that sell insurance across state lines. According to the Senate record, there were no cosponsors and no action has been taken on the bill since its introduction nearly two years ago. Perhaps the editorial writer has info indicating otherwise, but according to the Congressional Record, the instigator was a Democrat and the bill is going nowhere.

“Finally, these big-government Republicans are not pro-free enterprise and pro-wealth creation. Instead, they are pro-big business and pro-wealth preservation.

[RWC] Too bad the editorial didn’t provide any evidence to support its claims. I can, however, provide an example refuting the editorial’s claim. Republicans propose adding personal accounts to Socialist Security. This provision would permit workers to accumulate wealth and pass it to a worker’s heirs.

Here’s another point. Let’s assume Republicans are “pro-wealth preservation.” Even if that is true, what is wrong with it? Is there a problem with letting people keep what they earn? Does the Times believe there is a finite amount of wealth and that wealth can be “created” only by taking wealth from someone else?

The editorial doesn’t tell us what it means by “pro-big business” so it’s hard to comment on this. That said, it appears the editorial writer believes so-called “big business” and free enterprise are adversaries.

“In American politics, the term liberal lost all meaning many years ago. It’s time to assign conservative to the same slag heap of history.”

[RWC] The term “liberal” lost its original meaning nearly 100 years ago when socialists – today’s liberals and “progressives” – took it for themselves. Prior to this hijacking, liberalism stood for the equivalent of today’s conservatism. Indeed, true conservatism is also referred to as “classical liberalism.”

“We don’t know what Bush and the big government Republicans are, but we know what they are not - true conservatives, who, like true liberals, are few and far between.”

[RWC] I agree President Bush and most elected Republicans are not true conservatives. They are the equivalent of what used to be referred to as “Rockefeller Republicans.” In effect, they differ little from Democrats of the 1950s and early 1960s.

In this final sentence, the editorial tries to provide cover for liberals by claiming, “true liberals are few and far between.” Apparently the editorial writer hasn’t been paying attention, even to his own newspaper. To refute the editorial’s position, all you need to do is look at elected Democrats as a group. If you don’t see true modern day liberalism there, your own position is likely to the left of Karl Marx.