BCT Editorial – 2/1/09

This page was last updated on February 1, 2009.

Failing grade; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 1, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “United States must start investing in its infrastructure.”

This is simply the latest in a string of similar editorials over the past several years.

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 23 times (and the second time in three days) 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. Among the previous editorials were “Woe are we,” “Sound the alarm” (a companion to “Woe are we”), “Falling down,” “Cutting corners,” “Look ahead,” “Attack of the E. coli,” “Looking ahead,” and “Future shock.” At least three of the editorials conjured up images of a “Third World” country.

Another comment I want to make is about the following paragraph.

“We’re not thrilled about the amount of borrowing this is going to entail and aren’t sure whether it is going to kick-start the economy. However, the fiscal profligacy of the last eight years and decades-long indifference to infrastructure needs leave few options.”

Yes, you read that right. Despite “the fiscal profligacy of the last eight years,” the Times believes more “fiscal profligacy” is the solution. If you ever find yourself drowning, hope a Times editorial author isn’t coming to save you. Using the editorial’s logic, he more than likely will hold your head underwater to keep you from drowning.

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 now support deficit spending. Four previous examples are “Last resort,” “Limited options,” “Budget crunch,” and “Making the grade,” the final two coming just two days ago.