BCT Editorial – 2/25/09

This page was last updated on February 26, 2009.

A small step; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 25, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Even if Obama cuts deficit in half, U.S. is still piling up enormous debt.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans have good reason to be skeptical about President’s Barack Obama’s call to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years.

“They’ve heard it all before.

“If anything, though, Obama’s call to halve the deficit shows how out of control deficit spending had gotten during the Bush years.

“The Washington Post reported that even before Congress approved the $787 billion stimulus package, congressional budget analysts had forecast that this year’s deficit would approach $1.2 trillion. That’s a scary 8.3 percent of the overall economy, the highest since World War II.

“In that light, Obama’s pledge to drop the deficit to $533 billion by 2013 — 3 percent of the economy — marks progress.

“But $533 billion is still a whopping big number. When President Bill Clinton left office, the federal government was running a surplus and actually paying down the national debt. That was not so much the result of fiscal prudence as it was gridlock between the Clinton White House and GOP-controlled Congress and revenue from a healthy economy.”

[RWC] Wow, a moment of honesty, kind of. Most lefty partisans claim the short-lived budget surpluses were the result of Mr. Clinton’s policies. Had Mrs. Clinton won the presidency, I doubt this paragraph would have made the cut.

“But instead of capitalizing on that inheritance, Bush squandered it.”

[RWC] There are two other things President Bush inherited the editorial failed to mention. First, the surpluses had already peaked and were headed down during the final Clinton budgets. Second, and perhaps more important, Mr. Bush inherited a recession. Recessions and surpluses aren’t on speaking terms.

The editorial also failed to note the effects on the economy of the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and the accounting scandals of Enron, et al.

“Also, don’t forget that the deficits that will be piled up over the next four years and beyond will be added to the national debt, which now stands at $10.8 trillion.

“It was around $5.7 trillion — and on its way down — when Bush became president and Republicans controlled Congress. Keep that in mind as Republicans try to portray Obama as a big spender. Their addiction to tax cuts, reckless spending and borrowed money almost doubled that national debt.”

[RWC] Note the editorial doesn’t attempt to claim Mr. Obama is “a big spender.” That would be a neat trick considering Mr. Obama supported the $700 billion TARP bailout and championed the $1.2 trillion (includes interest) spending bill over and above the budget.

Given that Times editorials constantly lobbied for more spending, it would be interesting to know what it considered “reckless spending.”

“The nation’s fiscal future is even more ominous. As eye-popping as that $10.8 trillion is, it is dwarfed by the federal government’s unfunded obligations (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military and civilian pensions, etc.) They’ve been estimated at between $45-50 trillion.

“If they are not addressed, they will devour the federal budget within a few decades.

“In the short, medium and long terms, the federal government is facing enormous fiscal challenges. One measure of that is cutting deficit spending from $1.2 trillion to $533 billion is considered a sign of progress.”

[RWC] Apparently the Times would like us to forget its editorials just got done supporting the $1.2 trillion (includes interest) spending bill that was 100% deficit spending.

“The United States is living on borrowed cash — and borrowed time.”

[RWC] Editorials like this have the potential to make your head explode or make blood shoot from your eyes.

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 – now support deficit spending or at least see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil on the subject. Previous examples are “Last resort,” “Limited options,” Budget crunch,” and “Making the grade.” This appears to be a sore point with the Times since it won’t publish any comments calling attention to this flip-flop.

Now the Times is back to worrying about deficit spending and debt? Sure.