BCT Editorial – 3/1/07

This page was last updated on March 3, 2007.

Security risks; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 1, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The traditional function of government is to keep us safe and secure.

“We can argue endlessly about the federal government’s role in education, universal health care, retirement, welfare, etc.

“However, when it comes to protecting the nation militarily and making sure our food supply is safe, the disagreement is pretty much on the fringes. Americans want their nation to be secure; Americans want their food chain to be safe - and only the federal government can do that.”

[RWC] Note the editorial didn’t mention who’s on the fringes “when it comes to protecting the nation militarily.”

I disagree “only the federal government” can keep the “food chain safe.” Has anyone heard of the states?

“That’s why two reports out of the nation’s capital are so disturbing.

“The Associated Press reports that a new report to Congress concludes that because it is being strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won’t be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis.

“The report, which is classified, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

“The source of the report is important. It came from Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The news on the food front reflected the same decline.

“The federal Food and Drug Administration is conducting just half the food safety inspections it did three years ago. According to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press, FDA food safety inspections dropped 47 percent between 2003 and 2006.

“On top of that, there are 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices who concentrate on food issues, and safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75 percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year.”

[RWC] Here’s what’s missing from the editorial. According to the AP, inspectors spiked immediately after 9/11 in response to the belief that our food supply may be vulnerable to terrorists. The AP article indicates the number of inspectors is back to about the number we had in 2001.

Why didn’t the editorial note this fact? The Times wants us to believe the inspectors we had were the result of some decades long growth trend that the Bush administration slashed and burned. You can’t do that and be forthright with the information.

Do we have enough FDA inspectors? Who knows? There’s no way to tell from either this editorial or the AP story upon which it was based.

“This is what happens when the people running the show disdain government and the role it plays in our lives. While knocking government can be good in terms of winning elections, it’s a bad way to govern. Eventually, that anti-government attitude seeps down to programs that are valuable and worthwhile.”

[RWC] Translation: You can campaign in favor of smaller government, but don’t you dare to try to make government smaller once you’re elected.

“Americans saw the consequences of that disdain in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, when government failed miserably, and it’s being repeated with the FDA and the military. (Witness the dreadful conditions that some wounded and maimed U.S. military personnel have had to live with while being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.)”

[RWC] What BS! The primary governments that failed before, during, and after Katrina and Rita were state and local, though since that means Democrats in Louisiana and New Orleans they get a pass.

“Let’s be clear. The role that government plays in our lives should be debated and questioned. Government is not perfect. It does make mistakes.

“However, that’s no reason to diminish the positive role that government performs, especially when it comes to providing for our common defense and promoting our general welfare. The two reports cited above should have all Americans worried.”

[RWC] Again we get the “it’s OK to debate government’s role. It’s not OK to reduce it” attitude.

This subjects of the editorial are a Times dream. First, it cites a report no one can read because it’s classified. Second, it cites an alleged database search by the Associated “12 alive” Press.