BCT Editorial – 5/30/05

This page was last updated on May 30, 2005.

Salutes & Boots; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 30, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Salute: To the Beaver County Transit Authority and Rochester officials for taking advantage of a state program to revitalize the borough’s business district. Transit Revitalization Investment District encourages Pennsylvania’s communities to create a zone, usually within a quarter-mile radius, around bus and rail transit stations to promote revitalization and improvement. Borough and transit officials are now working to secure a $75,000 grant to pay for a planning study. We hope they are successful.”

[RWC] More support for central economic planning; i.e., throwing taxpayer paychecks down a rat hole. What leads the Times to believe either the BCTA or Rochester knows the first thing about economic development? As a reminder, the BCTA operates at a loss and requires taxpayer dollars to exist. If Rochester knew anything about economic development, it wouldn’t need taxpayer dollars to make it happen.

“Boot: To the tuition increase at the Community College of Beaver County. Under the 2005-06 budget, tuition will increase from $77 a credit to $80. This comes on the heels of a $4-a-credit increase the year before. We do not, however, blame local officials for the increase. The fault lies with the Legislature, which has chronically underfunded community colleges throughout the commonwealth.”

[RWC] I wondered how long it would take for the Times to provide proof it cried crocodile tears for local control in the editorial of May 26^th. It took only four days. If community colleges are truly community colleges, why should the state provide any funding? As the previous editorial noted, tax dollars routed via the state arrive at the cost of local control.

Note the editorial doesn’t say from where the state would get the tax dollars. Does the Times advocate cuts in other programs or state tax increases?

The editorial also doesn’t detail how it concluded local officials aren’t to “blame” for the tuition increase. Did the author perform a detailed review of CCBC finances and operations? I doubt it. I don’t know the underlying cause of the tuition increase, but it’s wrong to draw conclusions without a rigorous financial review.

“Boot: To the posturing that is going on in the nation’s capital [sic] in regard to the use of steroids in professional sports. The senators and representatives who are mugging it up for the publicity should clean up their own acts first. Like the athletes who use steroids to gain an advantage over the opposition, these lawmakers enhance their performance at election time by using money provided to their campaign funds by special interests to intimidate opponents.”

[RWC] Twice in two days the Times gripes about special interests.

I agree the government has no business making laws regarding the use of steroids in sports, but I see no comparison to campaign contributions. In case the Times editorial board missed it, campaign contributions are a form of political speech, and the U.S. Constitution protects free speech. There are also numerous laws – some unconstitutional – governing campaign contributions. I agree steroids in sports are bad, but it’s up to the individual sports to police themselves.

On a side note, the Times needs to get editorial authors and/or editors who know when to use “capital” and “capitol.”

“Salute: To Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Reli for her threat to veto a school nutrition bill that would ban most sodas and many snacks in school cafeterias, school stores and vending machines. The Associated Press reports experts have said the legislation, if signed into law, would be the strictest nutrition bill in the country. It’s not that we’re in favor of schools selling this junk. They shouldn’t. But as Reli rightly argues, the decision to do that should be left up to local school boards. Just as you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, you can lead children to healthy food but you can’t make them eat it.

“Boot: To End Hunger Connecticut! executive director Lucy Nolan for being clueless. Nolan said she would be shocked if Reli vetoed the measure cited above because it had widespread support among parents. ‘Is she listening to parents?’ Nolan asked. To which we can only respond, where does Nolan think these children picked up their taste for junk food? For far too many children, junk food is their mother’s milk.”

[RWC] I graduated from high school in 1970 and to the best of my recollection we didn’t have so-called junk food for sale anywhere in the school. Of course, I could be mistaken because if it existed I didn’t buy any. When did this practice start?

In any case, we have the editorial board demonstrating hypocrisy in the same editorial. Above the editorial whines about insufficient commonwealth funding for so-called community colleges and here we once again have crocodile tears about local control.