BCT Editorial – 2/2/06

This page was last updated on February 7, 2006.

Beyond words; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 2, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Don’t listen to what Bush says; pay attention to what he and Congress do

“Words. Mere words.

“In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Bush highlighted areas of major concern for the nation’s future - health care, its dependence on imported oil and the need to develop alternative energy sources, training more math and science teachers, Social Security reform, etc.

“But when it comes to this president and this Congress, it pays to be a Bokononist.

“Bokononism is a phony religion invented by Kurt Vonnegut for his novel ‘Cat’s Cradle.’ Of special relevance to modern-day America is the 14th Book of Bokonon, which consists of a long title and a one-word answer:

“The title: ‘What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on earth, given the experience of the past million years?’

“The answer: ‘Nothing’

“In regard to the all-too-real governance America has experienced since 2001, what can a reasonable person hope for from this administration and this Congress, given their track record over the past five years?

“The answer: Nothing.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial will fail to mention Democrats at the State of the Union speech got up and cheered when President Bush stated no progress had been made on Socialist Security’s problems.

“There are good reasons why skepticism has evolved into Bokononism when it comes to the present regime. Time and time again, the Bush White House and Congress have put the demands of special interests ahead of the good of the American people.

“Let’s start with alternative energy sources and energy conservation.

“In the early days of this administration, Vice President Dick Cheney headed a task force to develop energy policies for the nation. But advocates of conservation and alternative energy sources were ignored or given short shrift by the panel, which was overwhelmingly pro-energy industry.”

[RWC] Why is it a problem that “pro-energy” people dominated a group to develop energy policies? Who would the author have on the task force, people who are anti-energy?

The Times remains “stuck on stupid” with its continued emphasis on conservation. Forced unilateral conservation policies by the U.S. would do nothing but put our economy at a huge competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world. As I’ve written before, conservation works only when it makes economic sense, and that means each consumer needs to decide for himself when investing in conservation makes sense. For example, it makes no sense to spend $2 to save $1 of gas. The Times doesn’t seem to get it.

Here’s what the editorial doesn’t say about the conservation that it claims isn’t taking place. From 1973 to 2000, the amount of energy consumed to produce $1 of GDP decreased 42%. That’s a huge drop in my opinion.

The discussion regarding alternative forms of energy is similar to that for conservation. It makes no sense to spend $2 for a unit of energy from alternative sources to replace $1 of energy (same unit) from “conventional” sources. As I noted in a previous critique, “Liberal groups not only oppose increased domestic oil and gas exploration and production, they also come up with reasons to oppose coal power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, et cetera.”

While the Times accuses the Bush administration of being tone deaf regarding conservation, the Times itself is tone deaf regarding domestic oil and gas exploration. See the critique for the editorial entitled “Dead end.”

“And don’t forget that the vice president was unwilling to face the nation when it came to revealing the workings of his task force - an effort that was upheld by the courts - and that Cheney not too long ago disdained energy conservation as a ‘personal virtue.’”

[RWC] This will probably come as a shock to you, but the editorial took Mr. Cheney’s “personal virtue” comment out of context. Here is the context. In a speech at the annual meeting of the Associated Press in Toronto on April 30, 2001, VP Cheney spoke about nonrenewable energy sources, renewable energy sources, and conservation.

After several paragraphs describing the importance of conservation/efficiency to a sound energy policy, VP Cheney said, “Now, conservation is an important part of the total effort. But to speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy. We also have to produce more. The American people have worked very hard to get where they are, and the hardest working are the least likely to go around squandering energy or anything else that costs money.”

It’s amazing how putting a person’s comments in context changes things, doesn’t it?

“The administration had five years to get serious about developing alternative energy sources and promoting conservation and did little. However, this is an election year and the president had to provide his congressional followers some fig leaves with which to hide their nakedness on this matter.”

[RWC] I hate to break it to the Times, but the U.S. Constitution says nothing about “developing alternative energy sources and promoting conservation” being a government responsibility.

That said, President Bush proposed an energy policy in 2001 though it took Congress over four years to pass the “Energy Act of 2005.” Contrary to the editorial’s claim, the act provided subsidies and tax credits for energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources.

“The president’s call for changes in health care also should be viewed through the lens of Bokononism. Just look at the hieroglyphic Medicare prescription drug plan that millions of American seniors and their children are trying to decipher. It is becoming more evident with each passing day that the insurance and drug companies were the big winners, not Medicare recipients or American taxpayers.”

[RWC] The Times is concerned about American taxpayers not being “big winners” with respect to the Medicare prescription drug plan? Hogwash! Remember, the Times advocates a taxpayer-funded healthcare system. What could be more of a loss for taxpayers?

The Times feigns disapproval for the prescription drug plan because it was pushed through by a Republican and doesn’t provide completely “free” prescription drugs for Medicare participants. Exactly the same plan enacted by a Democrat likely would result in positive Times editorials.

As I’ve written many times before, I oppose any government involvement in healthcare and that includes Medicare and its prescription drug plan.

“When it comes to the president and his sycophants in Congress, don’t pay too much attention to the often high-minded things they say. Instead, watch what they do. That’s where their true intentions are revealed. If history repeats itself, there will be a world of difference between their words and their deeds.”

[RWC] How classy. The author stoops to name-calling.