This page was last updated on July 6, 2011.
It’s time to grow up; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 6, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.
“If it wasn’t so lethal, it would be amusing to sit back and watch the economic train wreck that will result if Congress does not raise the federal debt level.”
[RWC] When the BCT says others must “grow up,” you know you’re in for a doozy of an editorial. As you will see, this entire editorial is an exercise in fear mongering, something the BCT historically sees in others but not in itself.
“However, the cost of the carnage, not just economic but human, from such a wreck is too high. This collision must be avoided — and it starts with Republicans in Congress, especially the House, hitting the brakes on their manic obsession against raising taxes.”
[RWC] You have to love this. Democrats were the majority party in both houses of Congress for four years (including a short time with a filibuster-proof Senate) until January 2011 and held the White House for the last two-and-a-half years. They could have rammed through just about anything they wanted (as they did with Obamacare) to address deficits and debt but chose to focus on other stuff.
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.”
“When they were last in power, the brakes were off when it came to economic responsibility: massive tax cuts that mainly benefited the rich; two wars; a Medicare prescription drug program that represented the largest expansion of the welfare state since the mid-1960 [sic] — and no significant cuts in spending to counter this profligacy.”
[RWC] “[M]assive tax cuts that mainly benefited the rich?” Quoting the Tax Foundation (TF), a source often cited by the BCT, “Despite the charges of critics that the tax [rate] cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the ‘rich,’ these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.” The TF further stated, “7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts.” Based on 2008 income tax data, the top 1% of filers paid 38% of the total and the top 5% paid 59%. Heck, even President Obama eventually conceded not extending the Bush-era tax rates would result in an average tax increase of $3,000 per family.
The cuts were to tax RATES, not to taxes. Rate cuts are a proven way to help an economy in recession. Eventually we had record tax revenue (from the tax RATE cuts). Before the current recession began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession), the deficit was down to $161 billion. So-called “discretionary” spending increased at a slower rate than during the Clinton administration.
As for Medicare Part D, though I opposed it and still do, it has the distinction of being just about the only entitlement program, or any program for that matter, to come in under spending estimates, somewhere between 28% and 40%. In any case, it takes chutzpah for the BCT to complain about Medicare Part D but support Obamacare.
I always get a kick out of the BCT when it complains about profligacy. For at least the last four years preceding the 2008 election, and likely from the first day of the Bush administration, BCT 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. I questioned the motives in my critiques because BCT editorials concurrently lobbied for more spending on just about every proposal that came down the pike. After we elected President Obama, BCT editorials supported deficit spending. Seven previous examples are “Last resort,” “Limited options,” “Budget crunch,” “Making the grade,” “Failing grade,” “Move it along,” and “Double-dip recession.” 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.
“All in all, they nearly doubled the national debt.
“How did they manage to pay for all this? By raising the debt ceiling at least seven times.”
[RWC] Fine, but what did Democrats do to stop it? Since Senate Republicans had nowhere near a filibuster-proof majority before they became the minority in 2007, Democrats could have forced more responsible fiscal policies if they wanted. What did Democrats do to restore fiscal responsibility when they became the majority party in both houses in 2007?
“And voting for each increase were House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senator [sic] Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“All are clean and sober now that a Democrat is in the White House, and they have no qualms about using the debt ceiling to advance their political agenda. In doing so, they are embracing rhetoric over reason.”
[RWC] I don’t recall the BCT complaining when in 2006 then-Sen. Obama (D-IL) said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Which is it, was Mr. Obama “using the debt ceiling to advance [his] political agenda” and “embracing rhetoric over reason” in 2006, or is he doing that now?
“Given the horrific domestic and global consequences of the United States defaulting on its financial obligations, this rhetorical and fiscal posturing must end. It’s time for the few remaining adults among congressional Republicans to step forward and put an end to this nonsense.”
[RWC] Hyperbole much? Not increasing the debt limit does not require “the United States [to default] on its financial obligations.” There is far more incoming tax revenue than required to pay our debt interest and principal when due. The BCT knows this but hopes we don’t.
“The reality is that reducing the national debt is going to require spending cuts and revenue increases. It means shared sacrifices on the part of all Americans (except for the poorest and neediest).”
[RWC] The BCT likes to talk about “spending cuts” and “shared sacrifices.” When someone proposes specific spending cuts, however, you find “shared sacrifices” really means tax rate increases. BCT opposition to Gov. Tom Corbett’s then-proposed 2011-2012 commonwealth budget is only one example. Every BCT editorial on the topic bashed every proposed spending cut. Other than symbolic cuts by the General Assembly on itself and the executive branch on itself, the BCT “solution” to our debt/deficit problems is increasing taxation. To the best of my knowledge, only once has the BCT conceded “Raising taxes could slow the economy.”
“It’s time to stop the political posturing and grow up.”
[RWC] Wow, talk about throwing rocks while living in a glass house!
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.