BCT Editorial – 6/21/07

This page was last updated on July 2, 2007.

Political paralysis; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 21, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“A national energy policy appears set to become the latest victim of special interests that are paralyzing Congress.”

[RWC] Before proceeding, I believe it’s useful to define what people really mean when they use the term “special interest.” A special interest group is any advocacy group with which you disagree. For example, if you’re pro-abortion, anti-abortion groups are special interest groups but Planned Parenthood is not. It’s unlikely the Times considers advocacy groups it supports as special interest groups.

When a politician doesn’t vote the way someone wants, the losers always claim it’s because of special interest groups. The implication is that “disenfranchised” virtuous individuals supported one side and only evil special interest groups supported the other position. Of course, both individuals and special interest groups support every side.

“The Associated Press reports three powerful lobbying forces - automakers, electric utilities and the coal industry - are making it extremely difficult for Democrats to fashion a less-polluting energy policy.”

[RWC] Note the implication that Republicans favor a more-polluting energy policy.

“This isn’t to argue the pros and cons of a national energy policy, even though we believe our country must find ways to break its dependence on imported oil and to develop alternative energy sources.”

[RWC] Times editorials historically lobbied against domestic oil and gas exploration and production, though a recent editorial seemed to say something different.

The editorial conveniently omits the fact Congress passed and President Bush signed a national energy policy bill [The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-058)] less than two years ago.

“Rather, it’s about the ability of special interests to block legislation aimed at making fundamental changes in the way we handle Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, address the inequities in health care, tackle the needs of our crumbling infrastructure, implement realistic immigration policies, etc.

“Republican pollster Frank I. Luntz summed it up in 2005 when he told Business Week magazine that ‘special interests are so effective that you can kill almost anything today.’

“From the point of view of special interests that are looking out for themselves, that’s all well and good. But what about the nation as a whole? What’s good for special interests might not be good for the rest of us.”

[RWC] I get a kick out of comments like this coming from liberal-leaning outlets. A fundamental liberal tactic is to place people in classes, groups, et cetera all for the purpose of promising each group special treatment.

“The health-care field illustrates this. About 45 million Americans have no health-care coverage, and millions more are underinsured. Those who are insured are paying more and getting less of everything but hassles. Health care eats up a higher percentage of the nation’s GDP than any other industrialized country. The system is inefficient and expensive.”

[RWC] Please go here for my comments about the “45 million Americans have no health-care coverage” myth.

The editorial complains the U.S. way of supplying healthcare “is inefficient and expensive.” Can the Times cite any healthcare “system” in “any other industrialized country” that isn’t expensive? No.

Note the mention of inefficiency. Whether or not you believe our method is inefficient, is that how we want to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare system? It’s possible the optimum method as determined by a free market wouldn’t be considered “efficient.” For example, is it efficient to provide healthcare to someone you believe will die? Should that decision be in your hands, or in the hands of the government?

Note also the inconsistency with education funding. Times editorials constantly imply education quality comes with more spending. With healthcare, however, expensive is bad. I suspect expensive will become good if we ever end up with a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare system.

“Yet any attempt to change the status quo is attacked by a swarm of powerful special interests - the drug industry, the insurance companies, the hospital industry, professional organizations - that is looking to preserve or expand what it already has.”

[RWC] All current attempts “to change the status quo” involve increased government interference in healthcare. I believe this would lead most readers to conclude the Times is in favor of a government-run healthcare system. However, Times editorial page editor, Bob Uhriniak, disagrees with my conclusion that the Times supports a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal healthcare system. You can read more about this here.

“Who isn’t being heard? The uninsured, the underinsured and the insured who are paying more and receiving less.

“Go though the list of problems our nation faces. Attempts to resolve any of them are going to face the same fate as the Democrats’ energy bill. In the end, either nothing happens or a measure is so watered down that it has little or no impact on the problem being addressed.”

[RWC] Note that nowhere does the editorial mention what it considers to be a “watered down” energy bill. Why not?

“This political paralysis might be good for the special interests, but it’s bad for the country’s future. The problems we are not addressing today are going to reach mammoth proportions in the not-too-distant future.”

[RWC] Given government’s record, inaction is a good thing in most cases.