BCT Editorial – 4/16/09

This page was last updated on April 20, 2009.

Spending hypocrites; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 16, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “‘Tea Party’ protestors have lost touch with budget realities.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Let’s get this straight right up front.

“Americans do not pay enough in federal taxes. They also don’t want to make the sacrifices that are needed to cut federal spending to bring it in line with revenues.”

[RWC] Times editorials have been making this claim for at least several years.

The Times knows the protests were about more than taxes, but acknowledging that fact would present a problem for the editorial.

“Which is what makes the hundreds of so-called ‘Tea Party’ protests being held around the country so out of touch with reality.”

[RWC] Hmm, maybe the editorial has some credibility on this point. After all, the Times has quite a bit of experience with being “out of touch.”

“Start with this. The federal deficit at the end of March for the fiscal year stood at $956.8 billion, and the Obama administration predicts it will hit $1.75 trillion. The present administration inherited most of these obligations from its predecessor.”

[RWC] There’s no question there was too much taxing and spending as there has been for decades. I opposed it then and I oppose it now.

“In some sense, this year’s deficit is an anomaly fueled mainly by the financial bailout and the recession. However, last year’s deficit was a record $454.8 billion, and the federal debt nearly doubled during the Bush years when borrow-and-spend Republicans controlled the House and Senate for six years. (Unfortunately, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats seem intent on following the same path.)”

[RWC] Note how Democrat involvement in this mess gains only parenthetical mention.

Regarding the recession, the Times still hasn’t written an editorial about its origin. As the editorial says below, “[t]he silence speaks for itself.”

The Times keeps making this claim, but it’s not correct. Republicans didn’t control “the House and Senate for six years.” First, Democrats held the majority in the Senate from May 2001 to January 2003. Second, to control the Senate your party needs to have 60 reliable votes to shut down filibusters and Republicans didn’t have close to that. The most seats held by Republicans was 55, and when you factor in “Republicans” like Arlen Specter (PA), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), and others, the majority was frequently Republican in name only.

“Instead of raising taxes to cover the gap or cutting spending, Bush and his fellow travelers in Congress opted to impose the largest generational transfer of wealth in the nation’s history — from the future to the present — through irresponsible deficit spending.”

[RWC] I don’t know where the Times was for the last several years, but tax collections were at their highest in history. Also, when did increasing tax rates ever decrease deficit in the long run?

The editorial refers to “irresponsible deficit spending,” yet has been defending deficit spending ever since Mr. Obama’s election.

“In doing so, they were imposing massive tax increases on future generations of Americans — and ‘Tea Party’ protestors were nowhere to be seen.

“What a difference an election makes. Suddenly, taxes and the tax burden are major issues, even though the Obama administration is operating under the tax system that was put in place by former President George Bush.”

[RWC] What the editorial fails to note is the tax rate cuts put in place during the Bush administration are about to expire and Mr. Obama has stated he doesn’t intend to extend them. In other words, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats intend to raise tax rates, though they will claim it’s not really a rate increase.

“If these protestors don’t want to pay more in taxes, what federal programs would they cut? Social Security accounts for 22 percent of federal spending, while Medicare’s comes to 14 percent and Medicaid and SCHIP (combined) are at 7 percent. The defense budget eats up 20 percent of the budget and paying interest on the national debt takes up 8 percent.

“These five areas account for $7 out of every $10 the federal government spends. Federal spending cannot be reduced to bring it in line with revenue without (a) cutting these programs significantly or (b) eliminating all other federal programs.”

[RWC] Of Socialist Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, and national defense, there’s only one that’s called for by the Constitution.

“So, which of these five areas do the protestors and the politicians who pander to them want to target for massive spending cuts? The silence speaks for itself — and their hypocrisy.”

[RWC] Did the Times bother to ask anyone, or is it easier to make assumptions?