BCT Editorial – 7/24/07

This page was last updated on August 25, 2007.

No credibility; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 24, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush has become a born-again fiscal conservative.

“Spare us the hypocrisy.

“One reason it is hard to take Bush seriously as the leader of our country is that he is so blatantly partisan and political in almost everything he does.”

[RWC] It took me a while to stop laughing after reading the previous two paragraphs. Has the Times editorial board read the editorials it’s written/published?

“Take his threat to veto the $152 billion funding bill for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

“The Associated Press reports Bush has called the bill ‘irresponsible and excessive’ for busting his budget by almost $13 billion.”

[RWC] If you’re keeping track, $13 billion is an 8.6% increase over what was surely an increase in President Bush’s proposed budget.

“His veto could stick.

“The House voted 276-140 to approve the measure, which was short of the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. (The Senate has yet to act on companion legislation.)

“It’s hard to see how anyone in the administration, starting with the president, can make this kind of threat and keep a straight face. When Republicans controlled the House and Senate during Bush’s first six years in office, they sent him budgets that redefined government profligacy and fiscal irresponsibility - and he signed every one of them without a whimper of protest.”

[RWC] When I researched the “Bush is a big spender” allegation a couple of years ago, here’s what I wrote. “When you look at non-security ‘discretionary’ spending, President Bush has cut spending increases every year. In President Clinton’s last year, this category increased 15%. In President Bush’s five budgets, this category increased 6%, 5%, 4%, 1%, and decreased 1% in the 2006 budget. Slowing the rate of increase isn’t the goal, but it’s a start.” Note all these increases are significantly below the 8.6%+ increase noted above.

Make no mistake, though, I believe we spend too much.

Regarding the comment that President Bush “signed everyone of [the budget bills] without a whimper of protest,” that’s not entirely true. President Bush objected to provisions that provided tax incentives for domestic oil and gas exploration, though he ultimately signed the bill.

“But now that Democrats are in control, he’s embraced fiscal responsibility.

“He’s six years too late.

“This is not to let the Democrats who control Congress off the hook. The federal government isn’t just spending more money than it is taking in and heaping debt on future generations of Americans. Its funding priorities are out of whack. Billions are being poured into pork-barrel projects while important needs go unfunded or are underfunded.”

[RWC] Did you wonder why the editorial didn’t itemize the “important needs?”

“Democrats can and should be faulted for not addressing these issues. However, Bush and his GOP enablers in Congress are in no position to lecture them. When it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, they set the gold standard.”

[RWC] Quick, name the programs Times editorials have said should be cut or eliminated.

Note the editorial didn’t complain that government spends too much, only that it’s “spending more money than it is taking in.” I could be wrong about this, but I believe the Times idea of “fiscal responsibility” is any amount of government spending is OK as long you can raise enough taxes to cover it.