BCT Editorial – 11/9/10

I got a kick out of the “scare-tactic commercials” comment.  Did the Times miss the “greed is good” ad run almost nonstop in Pennsylvania by labor unions American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the National Education Association (NEA)?   I think it’s fair to say claims of “scare tactics” are now running a close second to the Times “go to” tactic of claiming racism.  Two previous claims of “scare tactics” can be found in - wait for it - “Scare America” and “Scare tactics.”  I’d like to think most of us are familiar with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  I think this fable would make a great read for the Times editorial board.

I also got a kick out of the “fellow travelers” comment in reference to Republicans.  The traditional meaning of “fellow traveler” refers to a person who supports communism, Marxism, et cetera without actually belonging to the Communist Party.  It looks like the Times is engaging in the lefty technique of changing a word’s meaning.

Let’s look at the Times credibility on the topic of debt and deficits.  The Times has published a series of editorials that alternated between lobbying for more spending and complaining about spending.  You’ll recall this paper cries crocodile tears about deficit spending and debt one day and the next day pitches a fit if anyone proposes spending cuts or adhering to “pay-go” rules. 

The editorial says “Deficits don’t matter - except when Democrats are in power.”  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.  Seven previous examples are “Last resort,” “Limited options,” “Budget crunch,” “Making the grade,” “Failing grade,” “Move it along,” and “Double-dip recession.”

The editorial claims Republicans “had no trouble cutting taxes.”  I’m sure the Times would like us to believe “the Bush tax [RATE] cuts” are responsible for our deficits, but that’s not true.  Before the 2008-2009 recession began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001.  Tax revenue didn’t cause the deficits, excessive spending did.  All else being equal, reduced rates result in greater economic output subject to taxation and ultimately result in more tax revenue, as we saw from 2001-2007.  For example, 40% of a 10” pie is 25% more pie than 50% of an 8” pie.  The editorial also fails to note the Clinton era budget surpluses (fiscal years 1998-2001) didn’t occur until after the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

The editorial claims “Even before 2008, balancing the budget would have required drastically reducing or eliminating other government services.” Maybe not.  The editorial failed to note from 2004 through 2007 the budget deficit dropped from $413 billion to $161 billion.  Don’t get me wrong; I believe all levels of government spend too much.  My point is only to illustrate the Times claim is not borne out by historical fact.  The deficit jumped to $459 billion in 2008 in response to the start of the recession and bailout spending.