BCT Editorial – 2/7/08

This page was last updated on February 12, 2008.

Farcical; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 7, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“While politics and hyperbole will come into play as Gov. Ed Rendell and Democratic and Republican lawmakers try to come up with a state budget for next year, their arguments, while not necessarily principled, will still be substantive.

“The same can’t be said for the unrealistic $3 trillion federal budget that President Bush has proposed for next year. With Democrats in control of the House and Senate, Bush’s budget was dead on arrival.”

[RWC] As a conservative, I suspect the budget is too large. Don’t believe for one second, though, that’s the Times complaint.

“The president knew that. The budget contains poison pills that Bush knows the Democrats are never going to swallow. It’s not about reconciling differences; it’s about confrontation. It’s not meant to unite the country; its intent is to divide it.”

[RWC] Hmm, when did the purpose of a budget become “to unite the country?” FYI, “uniting the country” is Times-speak for conservative capitulation to liberal demands. You would think it’s enough that President Bush is a Rockefeller Republican.

Did you note the editorial didn’t describe the alleged “poison pills that Bush knows the Democrats are never going to swallow?” Does anyone care to guess why?

“While Democrats have their own partisan agenda, even some Republicans acknowledged that Bush’s budget was unrealistic. As Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said, “Let’s face it. This budget is done with the understanding that nobody’s going to be taking a long, hard look at it.”

“The best way to approach the budget adoption process at the federal level in the coming months is to not take either side too seriously. Sure, these are serious matters. However, it is obvious that nothing of substance is going to be accomplished until someone else is sitting in the White House.”

[RWC] Just before the editorial went to press, “someone else” in the last sentence read “a Democrat/liberal.” <g>

“Americans can only hope and pray that person is willing to work with both parties in Congress to end this farce and regain control of the federal budget.”

[RWC] Translation: We at the Times hope and pray the next president is a liberal who will increase spending and taxes (except on newspaper businesses).

Don’t buy the blather about “control of the federal budget.” How many programs has the Times believably/seriously lobbied to be cut in order to “regain control of the federal budget?” Hint: You won’t need an entire hand – or maybe even one finger – to count them. Indeed, editorials have pulled the old “mandatory spending” BS to assert meaningful spending cuts are impractical.