BCT Editorial – 7/25/10

Proof positive; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 25, 2010.

Wow, where to begin?  Sometimes the Times goes above and beyond, or is below and beyond more accurate?  This editorial is an example.

The editorial leads off with “State senator doesn’t realize implication of her bashing.  The level of Philadelphia- and Pittsburgh-bashing was stunning, even by Harrisburg’s admittedly low threshold.”  The Times apparently expects us to forget editorials entitled “Freeloaders,” “Leeches,” “Welfare leeches,” and “Welfare queens” [7/7/09 (No critique - I was on vacation - and no longer on the Times website), 5/21/08, and 8/14/07].  On top of those we had editorials where these descriptions were used but didn’t appear in the title, as in Wednesday’s “Double dipping.”  I guess the Times assumes we forgot about its history of name-calling.

The editorial then continues its lame narrative that “a $470 million hole in the transportation budget [is] because the federal government rejected the commonwealth’s proposal to impose tolls on Interstate 80.”  I’ve covered that story previously, including in my critique of “Double dipping.”

The editorial moves on to say “State Sen. Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland County, could not resist the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-bashing bait.  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported she said the governor wants to pass ‘the burdensome costs of the mass transit systems in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to those hard-working men and women in rural Pennsylvania who have no other means of transportation except for their automobile.’”  Where’s the bashing?  As covered in previous critiques, what Ms. Ward allegedly said is exactly what the General Assembly, the Governor, and the Times propose.  The truth is unattractive to the Times when it’s presented in plain English.

The Times then tells us “The implication that everyone who uses public transit is a freeloader is insulting.  Try telling that to people working in a minimum-wage jobs [sic] in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and, yes, Beaver County who depend on public transit to get to and from work.  Such people do exist, you know.  (There’s another subtext here.  We’ll let you figure it out.)”  You have to get a kick out of the Times complaining Ms. Ward implied “everyone who uses public transit is a freeloader” when the Times has outright called her constituents “Freeloaders,” “Leeches,” “Welfare leeches,” and “Welfare queens” on a continuing basis.

There are at least two problems with the “people working in a minimum-wage jobs [sic]” comment. First, how is a person’s income relevant?  If Bob earns more than Joe, is Bob obligated to subsidize Joe’s transportation?  Second, the Times appears to assume “people working in a minimum-wage jobs [sic]” don’t exist in areas without “public transit.”

As for the alleged “subtext,” what is the Times talking about?

Next, the editorial jumps to the conclusion Ms. Ward “doesn’t mind siphoning money out of the transportation budget to pay for police protection in her hometown, Hempfield Township.”  If this were true, Ms. Ward’s position would be wrong.  The editorial, however, provides no evidence this is Ms. Ward’s position and the opposite appears to be true.  During July 2009, Ms. Ward and others submitted Senate Bill 984.  SB 984 says “A municipality or adjacent municipalities which, on the effective date of this section, do not have an organized police force may enter into an agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police for State trooper service. The municipality or municipalities must agree to pay for the State trooper service.”  Is the editorial lying to us about Ms. Ward’s position, or is it just lazy and didn’t bother to check?  As I’ve written previously (examples are here and here), communities that rely on the State Police in lieu of their own police department should pay for that service.

As I’ve written previously, here’s a radical – and probably “mean-spirited” – idea.  Whether we live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, why don’t we all just pay our own way for education, law enforcement, transportation, et cetera?  Nothing good comes from trying to pick another taxpayer’s pocket.