BCT Editorial – 7/27/08

This page was last updated on July 27, 2008.

No relief; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 27, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “McCain and Obama will continue Bush’s profligacy.”

This is yet another editorial crying crocodile tears over government profligacy. Review Times editorials and you find them constantly calling for more government spending (“investments”) on just about every program that comes down the pike. Here’s another clue the Times concern over profligacy is contrived. The editorial refers to “the fiscal irresponsibility of the last eight years.” In case the Times missed it, “fiscal irresponsibility” has been the story of the federal government since at least January 1933.

Though I could take issue with the presentation of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution as “center-left,” it’s probably accurate using the Times definition of “center” (left). In any case, the Times deserves credit for finally labeling these think tanks. While previous editorials had no problem identifying some think tanks as “conservative,” they didn’t put ideological labels on lefty think tanks. Then again, since that portion of the editorial was lifted verbatim from the subject McClatchy article, perhaps the ideological labeling slipped by accidentally.

I get a kick out of the editorial referring to the Tax Policy Center (TPC) as “nonpartisan.” Does the Times really expect us to believe a product of two left leaning “think tanks” is nonpartisan? You may recall the Times also tried this in “Budget busts.” As I’ve written elsewhere, very few – if any – organizations can legitimately be described as nonpartisan. There’s nothing wrong with being a partisan group. The key is the veracity of the facts, findings, et cetera presented.

The editorial is misleading when it refers to tax cuts. Before I proceed, I need to note I’m using the data in the TPC report and I have no idea if the data is reliable. Relative to existing tax policy, John McCain would reduce overall taxes by $615 billion over eight years while Mr. Obama would increase taxes by $262 billion over the same period. The talk of big “tax cuts” is relative to the higher tax rates that will return when the 2001/2003 tax rate cuts are set to expire.

Finally, in my critique of “Dream weavers” I noted no Times editorials as of that time had taken Barack Obama to task for his taxing and spending plans. While this editorial chides both candidates for not “telling it like it is on deficit spending and its impact on the national debt,” you’ll note that nowhere does the editorial urge either candidate to get spending under control. Indeed, given the consistent Times position that we’re not overtaxed despite the fact the average family eventually turns over nearly 33% of its income to all levels of government (This is near the all time high of 34% in 2000.), the Times is likely upset Mr. Obama is not proposing even higher tax rate increases.