BCT Editorial – 5/20/05

This page was last updated on May 21, 2005.

Jogging around; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 20, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND IT IS US: While the health-care and pension commitments of Ford and GM to workers and pensioners - which The Economist reports comes to about $1,500 a car, or 5 percent of GM’s revenue - put the auto firms at a competitive price disadvantage to the cars and trucks produced at the American factories of Japanese and European companies, another factor must not be overlooked: the massive state subsidies many of these foreign manufacturers have received. The Economist reports the foreigner companies ‘were showered with investment grants and other incentives from grateful states that in some cases could still be worth around $1,000 a car.’”

[RWC] Before the Times throws too many rocks, it should remember it routinely supports plans that throw money at “desirable” companies. Its support for Mr. Rendell’s Growing Greener II is just the latest example.

For the record, I oppose government “grants” to attract businesses. We need to make the overall economic environment attractive so businesses want to do business in our area. Government-directed economies never work over the long term and provide an environment for corruption.

“WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?: Just thought you’d like to know that Saudi Arabia, our main friend and ally, is the major source of the suicide bombers and jihadists in Iraq. The Washington Post reports an Israeli expert on terrorism has concluded that 61 percent of the Arabs killed in Iraq were Saudis. He also found that 70 percent of the suicide bombers named on the Web were Saudis. And don’t forget that the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on America was an almost all-Saudi operation. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?”

[RWC] I agree the Saudis aren’t the best of friends, but whom did the editorial forget to mention?

Why the U.S. mainstream media, of course. Did the editorial’s author miss the Newsweek “Koran flushing” article? Lest we forget, this was just the press’ latest salvo against our efforts.

The editorial also managed to omit the “friends” that opposed our Iraq action while taking money from Saddam Hussein laundered via the U.N. Oil for Food program.

GOLDEN AGE: The Economist reports fewer than one in three American families earning below $40,000 a year have any retirement savings, which means that Social Security will be the main source of income for many retirees. Any changes that are made in the Social Security system must look out for these Americans first.”

[RWC] Well, at least the Times concedes it believes Socialist Security should be a retirement welfare system.

It was predictable the editorial failed to note President Bush recommended a change to Socialist Security to do just this.

For the record, I oppose Socialist Security in general and President Bush’s recommendation to “means test” Socialist Security benefits specifically.