This page was last updated on January 6, 2011.
Default position; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 5, 2011.
Whenever the Times accuses anyone of hypocrisy, you have to give the Times credit for chutzpah.
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. 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 says, “Where was Graham from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was president? Instead of governing responsibly, as they now define it, they almost doubled the national debt, did little or nothing to wring waste, fraud and abuse out of government spending, and created the Medicare prescription drug plan, the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the mid-1960s.” You have to get a kick out of the Times complaining about Medicare Part D. Why? For years Times editorials implicitly lobbied for “universal healthcare” (while denying it in private) and lauded the passage of Obamacare. If Medicare Part D was “the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the mid-1960s,” what the heck is the endgame of Obamacare? If you believe “expansion of the welfare state” is why the Times opposed the Medicare prescription drug plan, I have a bridge to sell you. The only reason the Times opposed the benefit was politics. President Bush wanted it; that meant the Times had to oppose it. If the reason had anything with “expansion of the welfare state,” wouldn’t the Times also oppose Medicaid, SCHIP, subsidizing government-run bus systems, et cetera? As a reminder, I opposed Medicare Part D and still do. That’s consistent with my position that government has no business being a healthcare insurance provider. Not that it matters, but Medicare Part D is one of the very few government programs that actually came in under the cost estimate.
The above paragraph asked a good question about Mr. Graham, but if the Times were serious about deficit and debt reduction, it would welcome comments like those of Mr. Graham but tell us we need to hold our representatives’ feet to the fire.
The editorial concludes with, “They weren’t good stewards of the national purse. They were prodigal sons who squandered it. They had their chance for six years to control spending and did nothing but make matters worse. For them to pontificate now is the height of hypocrisy.” This is all true, but what did the editorial omit? From 2001 through 2006, during which Republicans were the majority party in Congress for about four and a half years (Democrats were the majority in the Senate from mid-2001 until January 2003.), federal debt increased by $2.8 trillion. In the four years (2007 through 2010) Democrats were the majority in both houses of Congress, our debt increased by about $5.3 trillion ($3.8 trillion in the last two years alone). In other words, in only four years a Democrat-majority Congress almost doubled the debt increase of the previous six years. Where’s the Times outrage?
As for asserting Republicans “weren’t good stewards of the national purse. They were prodigal sons who squandered it,” what does that make the Times? For which specific spending cuts did the Times lobby? As noted above, Times editorials consistently lobby for more spending on just about every proposal that comes down the pike. Further, editorials have pulled the old “mandatory spending” BS to assert meaningful spending cuts are impractical.
Remember “Pay-Go?” You may recall Times editorials sang praises for Pay-Go (Here’s only one example.) and bashed Republicans for allowing the previous Pay-Go law to expire in 2002 while failing to note Democrats didn’t reinstate the law for three years after they became the majority in Congress. Amid much fanfare, President Obama signed the new Pay-Go law on February 12, 2010. After the signing, Democrats pretty much ignored Pay-Go and always found an excuse why this or that bill should be exempt from Pay-Go. When then-Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) filibustered a bill because it violated the Democrats’ new Pay-Go law, a Times editorial told us Mr. Bunning was “Off balance” and launched into name-calling and personal attacks. Hypocrisy, or just lying about a position for political purposes? The Times was simply angry Mr. Bunning exposed the Pay-Go law as the PR stunt it was.
Finally, did you note the Times is far more forgiving of Michael Vick than it is of Republicans?
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.