BCT Editorial – 1/30/09

This page was last updated on February 1, 2009.

Making the grade; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 30, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Stimulus package right to target infrastructure deficiencies of schools.”

For at least the last four years preceding the 2008 election, Times editorials constantly and correctly complained about federal deficit spending, the country’s growing debt, and the burden that debt puts on us and future generations. Referring to these complaints as crocodile tears, I questioned the motives in my critiques because Times editorials concurrently lobbied for more spending on just about every proposal that came down the pike. As I’ve noted previously, since we elected President Obama, Times editorials – including this one and today’s other editorial, “Budget crunch” – now support deficit spending. Two previous examples are “Last resort” and “Limited options.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“One danger of the $825 billion economic stimulus package making its way through Congress is that it will become an earmarks extravaganza.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note the Congressional Budget Office estimates the real price tag is $1.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion when you include the interest. Remember, we’re borrowing the entire $825 billion, just as we did the $700 billion from last fall. That’s on top of the nearly $1 trillion deficit for the regular operating budget.

“In fact, there’s already stuff in there that has more to do with pushing social and political agendas than it does stimulating the economy — $4 billion to hire, equip and pay police; $16 billion in Pell grants for college students; $2.1 billion for Head Start and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

“As an editorial in Sunday’s Washington Post noted, ‘All of these ideas may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to kick-start the economy?’

“Congress would serve the nation and the American people if senators and representatives, as the Post’s editorial suggested, focused on increased food stamps and unemployment benefits; Medicaid money for state governments; increased infrastructure spending; and a tax rebate to low- and moderate-income families.”

[RWC] Funding for “increased food stamps and unemployment benefits,” Medicaid, and “tax rebate[s] to low- and moderate-income families” isn’t about “pushing social and political agendas?” Each one of these is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, aka welfare. Ignoring the unfairness of confiscating from Jane and giving to Jack, how does Jack spending Jane’s paycheck stimulate the economy more than Jane investing, saving, and spending her own paycheck?

Those of you who know you pay unemployment taxes will claim “foul” about my welfare comment. What you may not know is unemployment compensation trust funds are about to go into deficit and some are already there. Therefore, as the trust funds exhaust their funds, unemployment compensation checks won’t be funded by unemployment taxes, but by general taxes. That’s welfare.

Regarding the so-called “tax rebate,” most of that would go to people who have no income tax liability and may already get “refunds” for taxes they don’t pay. That’s welfare. Keep in mind the bottom 50% of those persons filing federal income forms paid only 2.99% (2006) of total taxes collected and 32.6% (2005) of persons filing paid zero. Given the current economy, I believe it’s fair to say those numbers will go down and up, respectively.

“Spending more money to upgrade schools falls into that category.

“According to U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-4, McCandless Township, Beaver County area schools could receive nearly $20 million under the package for low-income and special-education programs and construction and renovation of buildings.”

[RWC] How are any of these things the responsibility of federal taxpayers?

“Whether funding for low-income and special-education programs should be in the package is debatable. However, what is not up for argument is funding to improve the physical condition of school buildings.”

[RWC] Why not?

“A preliminary version of the American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card on America’s Infrastructure that was released Wednesday gave the nation’s schools a D average when it came to their physical condition. That’s the same grade it handed out in 2005.”

[RWC] The ASCE is not exactly an independent observer. I’m not saying the ASCE assessment is incorrect, but we need to keep in mind low grades help the ASCE because low grades mean more civil engineering projects and this benefits ASCE membership. Over the last several years, the Times has used the ASCE at least 22 times as a source for its infrastructure-related editorials, yet I believe you’ll find the Times never mentioned the possibility of a conflict of interest.

“ASCE reported that although no comprehensive, authoritative nationwide data on school buildings have been collected in a decade, the National Education Association’s best estimate to bring schools into good repair is $322 billion.”

[RWC] Here’s potential conflict of interest #2. Lest we forget, the NEA isn’t an “education association.” It’s a labor union whose mission in life – or at least that of its management – is to get taxpayers to spend as much as it can on public schools.

“The money that has been set aside to upgrade America’s schools would be well spent — and long overdue.”

[RWC] Even if you accept everything the editorial says as fact, why should federal taxpayers be on the hook for this? The last I checked, public schools were the responsibility of local and state taxpayers.

Finally, there’s only one source for the money to fund all this stuff, you, future taxpayers, and me.