BCT Editorial – 6/2/11

This page was last updated on June 14, 2011.

Growing pains; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 2, 2011.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“At some point, the few remaining adults in Congress will have to step in and address the problem posed by the nation’s long-range debt.”

[RWC] Given the Times editorial body of work, it has zero credibility on this topic.

“The juvenile stunt House Republicans pulled Tuesday is not part of that effort.  It might have made for good political theater and 24-7 infotainment cable programming, but it was irresponsible governance.”

[RWC] There’s a reason the editorial didn’t describe “[t]he juvenile stunt” or the “irresponsible governance.”  “The juvenile stunt” and “irresponsible governance” was an up-or-down vote on a completely clean bill (H.R. 1954) to increase the debt limit.  I’m sure it was an honest oversight – not – the editorial failed to note President Obama and other Democrats requested such a bill/vote at least as recently as mid-April.

“Here’s the reality.  Regaining meaningful control of budget deficits will require less spending and more revenue.  The problem is systemic, started long before 2009 and is bipartisan.  Solving it will require a major reevaluation of federal spending priorities.”

[RWC] “Here’s the reality?”  From a Times op-ed piece?  Seriously?

“[L]ess spending?”  At least since I began critiquing Times editorials in 2004, the Times supported just about every spending proposal that came down the pike.  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.

Then again, perhaps the Times has adopted Mr. Obama’s definition of spending.  During a campaign speech on April 13, 2011, President Obama presented us with what I believe was a new euphemism.  Mr. Obama said, “The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures.”  It turns out “spending in the tax code” and “tax expenditures” are euphemisms for provisions of the tax code Mr. Obama doesn’t like.  For example, the ability to deduct mortgage interest on your 1040 is “spending in the tax code” or a “tax expenditure” if you’re “rich.”  Further, the difference between the tax rate Mr. Obama thinks is “fair” and what you pay is also a “tax expenditure.”  On the other hand, the misnamed Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a version of welfare that actually results in “refunds” even to people who didn’t make a tax payment, is not “spending in the tax code.”  Therefore, when Mr. Obama says he wants to reduce “spending in the tax code” or “tax expenditures,” he really means he wants to increase taxes.  That’s how Mr. Obama justified calling his $4 trillion deficit reduction “plan” over 12 years as being based on “spending cuts.”  Mr. Obama felt he had to try this language trick because he knows the people don’t agree with tax increases for anyone, even the evil rich.

“Finally, none of this will be possible until Americans understand that shared sacrifices will be required of them.  For them, the free ride is over — as taxpayers, consumers of government services and responsible citizens.”

[RWC] The Times likes to talk about “shared sacrifices.”  When someone proposes specific spending cuts, however, you find “shared sacrifices” really means tax increases.  Times opposition to Gov. Tom Corbett’s proposed 2011-2012 commonwealth budget is only one example.  Every Times editorial on the topic has bashed every proposed spending cut.  Other than symbolic cuts by the General Assembly on itself and the executive branch on itself, the Times “solution” to our debt/deficit problems is increasing taxation.  To the best of my knowledge, only once has the Times conceded “Raising taxes could slow the economy.”

“A report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, as cited in a column by Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times, drives home the danger debt poses, not just for the United States but for other developed nations as well.

“‘That government debt will grow to dangerous and unsustainable levels in most advanced and many emerging economies over the next 25 years — if there are no changes in current tax rates or government benefit programs in retirement and health care — is virtually beyond dispute,’ the authors wrote.  Morgenson says the report indicates there is no immediate crisis.  Still, the United States only has about a five-year grace period to start addressing debt problems.

“‘But given how our debt is growing, a fiscal crisis looms if policy makers do nothing,’ Morgenson wrote.

“So, the politicians in Washington aren’t just squandering money.  They’re wasting precious time, too, by playing games like Tuesday’s farce.”

© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.