BCT Editorial – 6/13/06

This page was last updated on June 13, 2006.

Two-faced; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 13, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“We wouldn’t mind an effort to cut federal spending on health research, school aid, social services for the poor and other areas if it was part of an overall move toward austerity.”

[RWC] If you’ve followed Times editorials, you’re probably still laughing after reading this sentence. When has an editorial ever seriously advocated serious spending cuts of any kind? Indeed, over the last couple of weeks we were treated to editorials advocating more spending.

“But it isn’t.

“The Associated Press reported last week that the House Appropriations Labor-Health and Human Services and Education subcommittee on a 9-7 party line vote cut funding to the National Institutes of Health, programs funded by the No Child Left Behind education bill, safe and drug-free schools grants, the federal share for special-education programs and other areas, yet lawmakers found $1 billion more than last year to fund pork-barrel projects back home.”

[RWC] Other than perhaps funding of the NIH, the other three federal programs enumerated shouldn’t even exist according to my copy of the U.S. Constitution. The pork barrel spending shouldn’t exist either.

“The American people had better wake up to this two-faced approach to cutting and spending, and do something about it before it’s too late.”

[RWC] I believe what the editorial implies and what its authors really want are two different things. The editorial implies it wants pork barrel spending cut along with other extraconstitutional spending. In truth, and based on previous editorials, I believe the authors want spending of almost all kinds to increase.