BCT Editorial – 2/12/08

This page was last updated on February 12, 2008.

Chunky; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 12, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Deficit defenders pooh-pooh President Bush’s profligacy by pointing out that it is a small percentage of the gross domestic product.”

[RWC] Have you noticed none of the editorials on this topic detailed exactly where the profligacy took place, except for the Medicare prescription drug program?

“It is, though, a huge chunk of the federal budget, which is what should matter to most Americans who aren’t economists or Bush apologists.”

[RWC] FYI, the Times definition of “Bush apologist” is a person who doesn’t believe President Bush is the spawn of Satan. For example, though I’ve regularly cited major positions of President Bush I opposed, I’m a “Bush apologist” because I don’t oppose all of his positions.

“The editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that the projected deficit for fiscal 2009 is $410 billion. By the time Bush leaves office, the national debt will be $9.7 trillion, about $4 billion of which was added under his watch.”

[RWC] Does anyone proofread these editorials? I believe you’ll find “$4 billion” should be “$4 trillion,” but what’s three orders of magnitude among friends?

“Interest payments on the debt next year will cost Americans $260 billion. To put that into perspective, that equals the money spent on the Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Labor combined.

“Keep this in mind as Bush pontificates about the need to cut government spending and practice fiscal responsibility. He has had seven years to practice what he is now preaching and, like so much else he has done, he failed miserably.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, don’t buy the blather about “fiscal responsibility.” How many programs has the Times believably/seriously lobbied to be cut in the name of “fiscal responsibility?” 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. Indeed, if President Bush had cut spending, as he should have, we’d be reading editorials complaining about “draconian” cuts.