BCT Editorial – 2/19/09

This page was last updated on February 21, 2009.

Lush funds; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 19, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Americans would be wise to treat GOP’s fiscal sobriety warily.”

This editorial is one of those that either makes you laugh out loud or makes you want to wrap your head in duct tape to keep it from exploding.

For at least the last four years preceding the 2008 election, and likely from the first day of the Bush administration, 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,” “Making the grade,” and “Failing grade.”

Ignoring the Times own hypocrisy on the topic, the editorial is damaging because it’s correct when it comes to elected Republicans spending too much. I got a kick out of the pass the editorial gave Democrats on spending because “at least they don’t pretend to be what they are not.” That’s the same thinking that gets Republicans skewered for moral shortcomings while Democrats generally get a pass. If you don’t set standards for yourself, you aren’t vulnerable to failing to meet standards.

Editorials like this show the damage done by campaigning as a conservative then governing as something less. It goes to credibility. When a Republican now campaigns on conservative principles, voters have every justification to be doubtful. This costs Republicans votes from both conservatives (who simply may not vote) and “fiscally conservative” Democrats who would vote for a Republican with conservative fiscal principles. Even a real Republican is damaged because he gets tarred with the reputation of his party.

Finally, if the Times really believed in the fiscal responsibility it claimed to want previously, the editorial would have said something like “You can’t trust Republicans when it comes to spending, but this time they got it right.”