BCT Editorial – 2/9/06

This page was last updated on February 12, 2006.

Mad money; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 9, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Budget cuts and limits on spending don’t add up to anything significant

“Do you know someone who has an almost-full jar into which he tosses change to be used as mad money when he goes on vacation?

“If you want to understand the significance of President Bush’s proposed cuts and limits in overall federal spending for 2007, reach in and grab a handful of coins.

“They’ll never notice, and the same goes for Bush’s budget proposals.

“The Associated Press reports Bush’s $2.77 trillion spending blueprint for the 2007 budget year that begins Oct. 1 calls for large increases for the military and homeland security while reducing spending for nine Cabinet agencies.

“Over the next five years, the president also is seeking savings of $36 billion in Medicare, $5 billion in farm subsidy programs, $4.9 billion in Medicaid support for poor children’s health care, and $16.7 billion in additional payments from companies to shore up the government’s pension benefit agency.

“Bush’s proposed spending reductions and limits on future increases met with immediate opposition from Democrats, and a number of Republicans weren’t happy with what they were presented.

“And it’s all a lot of hot air.

“When it comes to Washington, D.C., and the federal budget, we are in the world of true lies. What that means is that while our leaders aren’t lying to us, they also aren’t telling the truth.

“As in every organization, it starts at the top.

“Bush set the tone in his State of the Union Address, which, as the nonpartisan FactCheck.org at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania noted, was chock full of selective facts and strategic omissions, i.e., true lies.”

[RWC] The Times has nerve writing about “true lies.” For example, it consistently states facts out of context to support its opinions regarding public school funding. In a more recent example, an editorial took two words out of a speech by VP Cheney to claim he took a position he clearly did not.

“For instance, the president bragged about reducing the growth of non-security discretionary spending. That’s true, but it’s not the whole truth. What the president failed to tell the American people is that this category only accounts for about 16 percent of the total budget. He also left out the embarrassing fact that overall federal spending is up 42 percent under his not-so-vigilant budget watch.

“Here’s one way to put Bush’s call to action into perspective. Writing in The Washington Post, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Congressional Budget Office director from 2003 to 2005 and chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2003, notes that the $39 billion in cuts in projected spending Congress made a few weeks ago amounted to less than 7/100ths of 1 percent of gross domestic product.

“Basically, that’s the pennies you took from your friend’s money jar.

“Other than to provide political talking points and spin control purposes, the cuts and limits Bush is proposing are meaningless - and they certainly don’t add up when it comes to budgetary discipline.”

[RWC] I’ve always believed governments spend way too much because they spend ridiculous sums on extraconstitutional programs.

What the editorial states may be true, but here’s my problem. The editorial is completely inconsistent with Times economic, political, and social positions except for Bush bashing. When did you ever read a Times editorial that lobbied for spending cuts of any kind, let alone meaningful cuts? You can bet we’d see an even more negative editorial if President Bush proposed a budget with meaningful cuts of extraconstitutional spending.