BCT Editorial – 8/24/08

This page was last updated on August 24, 2008.

The party is over; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 24, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Documentary film should focus election attention on spending.”

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.

Let’s look at some of the editorial’s assertions. We read, “… the Clinton administration made debt reduction one of its priorities. In just six years, George W. Bush, the profligate president, and the GOP-controlled Congress blew what progress had been made in regard to annual deficits and the national debt.”

Ask anyone what specific programs the Clinton administration put in place to reduce the deficit and you’ll get silence. The fact is, the Clinton administration simply went along for the ride. The gradual deficit reduction was the result of a growing economy that didn’t slow until Mr. Clinton’s last year in office. Don’t get me wrong; Mr. Clinton deserves credit for not screwing things up in this regard (The Republican-majority Congress helped.), but don’t for a second believe it had anything to do with spending control by the Clinton administration. As far as “progress had been made in regard to annual deficits and the national debt,” the data shows that had already reversed before President Bush took office. Throw in the recession President Bush inherited + 9/11 + Enron and you’re guaranteed a deficit.

While the Bush administration reduced spending growth relative to the Clinton administration (You won’t learn that from the Times.), there’s no question the Bush administration and Congress didn’t do anywhere near enough to cut spending. Indeed, they managed to enact a new entitlement (the Medicare prescription drug plan) and expanded spending on education among other things.

The editorial told us about “tax cuts of dubious value.” There were tax rate cuts, not “tax cuts.” There’s a big difference. Though we have lower income tax rates, tax collections are greater today than they were when President Bush took office. Cutting tax rates is tried and true method for helping revive a sagging economy, as we had when President Bush took office and which was exacerbated by 9/11, the Enron et al mess, and the anthrax scare of late 2001. Not cutting tax rates would have been incredibly stupid. This means the editorial author is either ignorant of economics and history or is simply pushing a political talking point. Remember, it’s a 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 bottom line is this. In truth, leftists like the Times want to spend as much as possible of your family’s paycheck, pension check, et cetera. Their idea of fiscal responsibility is jacking up taxes (except those that directly affect the Times bottom line) to match spending. The problem is twofold. First, taxes are an infringement on individual liberty. The higher taxes go, the less freedom we have. Second, the higher tax rates go, the slower the economy goes. The slower the economy goes, the less tax revenue is collected and that trend is only intensified by increasing tax rates in an effort to make up for lower tax collections.