BCT Editorial – 7/27/11

One-way only; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 27, 2011.

This is the second “Welfare queen” twofer in just over a month.  Some previous name-calling editorials were entitled “Welfare queen rip-off,” “Subtle subsidy,” “Freeloaders,” “Leeches,” “Welfare leeches,” and “Welfare queens” [7/7/09 (No critique - I was on vacation - and no longer on the BCT 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 “Double dipping.” 

I remind readers its editorial body of work would indicate the BCT believes much more in a free market and/or privatization for alcoholic beverages than it does for education and healthcare.  Several editorials advocated “attempts to drag the state’s wine and spirits sales into the 21st century.”  As I noted in previous critiques, I lived in Texas for over 18 years and I can testify the ability to buy alcohol in grocery stores, private liquor stores, et cetera and the lack of state stores didn’t bring about the end of the world.  I agree government shouldn’t be in the business of selling alcoholic beverages – or anything else – but I wanted to note BCT inconsistency.  I know what the editorial says, but I’d like to know the real reason the BCT takes this position since it goes against the BCT’s consistently leftist ideology.  Keep in mind, though, for years the BCT claimed it opposed a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly, then turned around and supported Obamacare, calling it an “Ethical standard.”

I could be falling into a language trap, though.  Because I’m a conservative, when I read “privatization” I assume that means a free market.  We know, however, privatization does not necessarily mean a free market.  Education and healthcare are just two examples.  Given BCT history and ideological leaning, it’s possible (likely?) the BCT simply wants the private sector to provide the capital while the state provides so much regulation that it’s the de facto operator.  Another name for that arrangement is fascism.

As in “Fire sale,” the BCT asserts “opposition from the rural, Republican T, where some people still believe repealing Prohibition was a mistake.”  As I wrote in my critique of that editorial, “I never heard ‘conservatives in the so-called T of Pennsylvania … still believe … repealing Prohibition was a mistake.’  Perhaps I use the wrong news sources.”

The editorial then said, “The Associated Press reported one reason Scarnati gave for having doubts about selling the stores was whether any private bidder would be interested in those that serve towns in his sparsely populated northern district, such as Brockway, Kane and Port Allegheny.  In effect, Scarnati was acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that these stores are subsidized by the sale of wine and spirits in other, more populous parts of the state — just as happens with the T’s schools, roads and bridges.”  I don’t know Mr. Scarnati’s meaning, but you’ll note the editorial didn’t provide any data to support its interpretation.  As I’ve noted before, the BCT tends to forget “schools, roads and bridges” “in other, more populous parts of the state” are also subsidized.

What the BCT wants us to believe is a coalition of Republican teetotalers and alcohol-drinking cheapskates don’t want the privatization.  Sure.  Further, the BCT wants us to believe people in Mr. Scarnati’s district won’t buy alcoholic beverages unless they are subsidized.  How, then, do beer distributors in this area survive?  What about bars?

As for the comment “Use revenue from drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale to benefit the entire commonwealth?  No way.” in “One-way only,” please read my critique of “Welfare queen rip-off.”

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?  As individuals we must be willing to pay for our individual life and lifestyle choices out of our own pockets.  Nothing good comes from trying to pick another taxpayer’s pocket.  Think the BCT would support this position?  Not in a million years.