BCT Editorial – 7/28/11

This page was last updated on July 29, 2011.

Handling the truth; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 28, 2011.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Put the blame where it belongs when it comes to federal deficits — the presidency of George W. Bush and his Republican borrow-and-spend enablers in Congress.”

[RWC] Given its content and decreasing size, I tend to via the BCT as something akin to the Pennysaver with leftist op-ed pieces or the newsletter of a local lefty group with advertisements.

There’s no question we spent more than we should, but don’t believe for a second the BCT is complaining about excessive spending. It’s all about giving Democrats cover for their part in this mess.

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. Referring to these complaints as crocodile tears, 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. As I’ve noted previously, since we elected President Obama, BCT 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 New York Times reports the total cost of Bush’s policies — the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts, TARP, etc. — comes out to $5.07 trillion.

“Meanwhile, the new policies of President Barack Obama add up to $1.44 trillion.”

[RWC] I don’t know if the NYT figures are correct or not (It’s the NYT, after all.) and I’m not going to take the time to research them because this editorial is only about assigning blame, not analysis.

If we’re going to place the blame solely on “the presidency of George W. Bush and his Republican borrow-and-spend enablers in Congress,” we should also look at the actions of Democrats. What did Democrats do to stop it? Since Senate Republicans had nowhere near a filibuster-proof majority before they became the minority in January 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? What did Democrats do to restore fiscal responsibility when a Democrat became President in January 2009? For a short time, Democrats even had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The BCT would like us to forget Democrats, including then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), backed TARP more so than Republicans. Who passed Mr. Obama’s so-called “jobs” and “stimulus” bills? Hint, it wasn’t Republicans.

There is a difference between “tax cuts” and tax RATE cuts and the BCT knows it. The BCT would probably like us to forget that 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. Some “tax cut,” isn’t it? By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession and before Democrats became the majority in Congress), the deficit was down to $161 billion and dropping.

Finally, you’ll note the editorial failed to talk about what triggered the recession and clobbered tax revenue.

“One other truth: If the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, deficits would be cut by about half.”

[RWC] If true, why didn’t Democrats do this when they held both houses of Congress for four years and had a Democrat president for two years, including a brief time with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?

The BCT didn’t tell us where it got its “One other truth,” but I’d guess it came from someone who believes in static analysis or just makes stuff up. For example, you increase tax rates and assume people won’t change their behavior to minimize the impact of the higher tax rates.

Given the editorial’s last paragraph, I’m relatively sure the BCT would like us to forget the BCT once conceded “Raising taxes could slow the economy.” Looking at this from the positive side, cutting tax RATES increases economic activity because people get to keep more of what they earn. It’s simple human behavior; the more you get to keep, the more you will produce. As a result, lower tax RATES result in greater tax revenue because the lower RATE applies to a bigger pie. For example, 40% of a 10” pie is 25% more than 50% of an 8” pie. If the BCT believes tax rate increases will help “deficit spending … to be addressed realistically,” it is ignoring history and logic. The best way to increase tax revenue is via an expanding economy, and higher tax rates work against that goal.