BCT Editorial – 9/26/06

This page was last updated on September 26, 2006.

Birth burden; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 26, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bush wants to keep piling massive debt on future generations of Americans

[RWC] Accusing President Bush of wanting to pile up debt is a variation on a theme. When innocents are killed in Iraq, the Bush bashers assert he wants to kill civilians.

“With his scare tactics on terrorism reaching the point of diminishing returns with the American people, President Bush trotted out another GOP bogeyman - taxes.”

[RWC] “Scare tactics on terrorism reaching the point of diminishing returns?” Hmm, that wasn’t what I got from the editorial “Ignorance isn’t bliss.” Also, during late July and early August, we saw two editorials telling us “We’re all targets” and “terrorists can successfully attack anywhere at anytime in the United States.” I wish the Times would make up its mind. Does it believe terrorism is a threat or simply “another GOP bogeyman?”

“The Associated Press reported that while campaigning in Florida, Bush charged that a vote for Democrats in the November election would be a vote to raise taxes.

“‘I’m looking forward to reminding the American people there are significant differences in between what our party believes and what the other party believes. It’s easy to tell us apart,’ the president said. ‘And the first place you can start is looking at taxes.’”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial doesn’t waste the words trying to claim Democrats wouldn’t raise taxes. After all, the Democrats are on record decrying all the tax cuts and advocating tax increases for “the rich” since 2001.

“This comes from a fiscal profligate whose borrow-and-spend policies will heap an enormous amount of debt on future generations of Americans. This comes from a spendthrift who has put short-term political gains ahead of the long-term good of the country.

“Here’s the cold hard truth: The federal government is spending far more than it is taking in. Its options are to raise taxes, cut spending or a combination of the two. The United States can’t grow its way out of this problem, which is structural as well as fiscal.”

[RWC] If the “United States can’t grow its way out of this problem,” why does the deficit keep dropping? As a reminder, tax receipts for the first 11 months of fiscal year 2006 were 11.6% higher than for the same period of FY 2005.

If anyone can produce Times editorials during the presidencies of FDR, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton that bashed that president for deficits, please let me know.

Don’t get me wrong. I oppose deficit spending, but I oppose that spending regardless of the president’s political party and I believe the balancing needs to come from spending cuts. I just don’t believe the Times really cares about deficits.

History shows us over and over that tax increases don’t result in balanced budgets. That’s for two reasons. First, in the mind of a politician, more tax dollars means more spending. Second, increased taxes represent a drag on the economy, and a slowed economy means lower tax receipts.

“Yet Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress want to keep going in the other direction by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

“In doing so, they are taxing future generations of Americans. After all, somebody eventually is going to pay for their massive excesses.

“Here’s how bad it is: Comptroller General David Walker reports that the federal government’s long-term liabilities and unfunded obligations have grown from $20 trillion to $46 trillion in the last five years. That translates into $156,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

“‘People talk about the death tax,’ Walker said recently. ‘What about the birth burden?’

“Walker is right. We can’t continue with today’s borrow-and-spend excesses. Unfortunately, the American people have a president who wants to continue ripping off future generations.

“Look at your children. Look at your grandchildren. You owe them $156,000 - and you should be ashamed of that, even if Bush isn’t.”

[RWC] As I’ve asked many times before, when has the Times seriously advocated any spending cuts? If you answer the Medicare prescription drug plan, that’s not correct. The Times merely wants to replace the Medicare drug plan with a much more expensive taxpayer-funded national healthcare system.

So how many of you believe the members of the Times editorial board have set aside $156,000 for each of their children and grandchildren? That said, the editorial said “you owe them $156,000,” not “we owe them $156,000.” Perhaps the Times doesn’t include itself.