« Al-Qeada uses rape to indoctrinate suicide bombers | The variable literary craftsmanship of Barack Obama »
PrintFebruary 6, 2009
New York Times ridiculous editorial on the stimulus
The Times publishes a full-throated screed against Republicans who oppose the stimulus bill in its present form.
We’re happy to see President Obama getting tough with Congressional Republicans who are trying to sabotage the stimulus and recovery bill and bring even greater ruin on the economy.
How is that for an opening? Republicans are trying to bring even greater ruin on the economy by sabotaging the stimulus and recovery bill.
We are led to believe that the Times editorial page is promoting the propaganda that the Republicans ruined the economy to begin with and are now trying to deepen our misery.
Furthermore, the Orwellian-named stimulus and recovery bill is chock a block with a ridiculous level of pork, unfit for consumption, that rewards Democratic party constituencies and pet projects of leading Democrats (Nancy Pelosi’s provision for STD prevention-since removed, is but just one of them). Here is another list of what items Republicans consider wasteful and not stimulative: “stimulus” that has a plum for a powerful Congressman’s son. I suppose Pinch Sulzberger has no problem with such nepotism since that is why he heads the New York Times, but this is taxpayer money.
The Republicans do not oppose stimulus: they oppose a big pile of earmarks designed to shower taxpayer dollars for partisan reasons.
Demonizing them reveals how the New York Times has just become a partisan paper and has thrown any sense of objectivity and honesty aside.
The Times continues:
Unhappily, there are many Republicans who have not learned the lesson of this last campaign — that Americans rejected their arguments that government is the enemy and tax cuts answer all economic questions.
It would be highly irresponsible for Congress to accept the Republicans’ wrongheaded calls to cut back on the stimulus portions of the economic package, and shortchange longer-term spending on health care, schools and infrastructure.
Barack Obama did not win 100 percent of the vote (he won 52.9 percent of the vote; and lost 45.7 of the vote); he should consider the wishes of all Americans-including those who did not vote for him. He does not have an overwhelming mandate despite his own claims and the declaration of the Times editorial writers.
Then the Times compounds its errors by seeming to take a lash to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for being too timorous in wielding their power against fellow Democrats. This is laughable. Pelosi changed rules in the House to make it easier to railroad recalcitrant members into approving not just this bill but all bills to come. She planted items in the stimulus bill to reward her base and her parties key constituencies. Harry Reid has not been a passive participant; these items would not have gone into the bill if Pelosi and Reid did not want them in there.
Short-term stimulus — more unemployment insurance, shovel-ready projects that put Americans to work — are a top priority. But Republican claims that spending money on projects that would take a year or two to develop is not stimulus are nonsense. By all projections, this will be a long recession and a protracted recovery.
By all projections? Economists never unanimously agree on any forecast; they are famous for hedging their own forecast (on the one hand, on the other hand).
We know Mr. Obama is capable of uniting disparate groups.
President Obama has not tried to work with Republicans on this bill, aside from a photo opportunity. In fact, he attacked “political bickering and partisan posturing” in his radio address this past weekend. How is that for uniting disparate groups? Do the members of the New York Times editorial board follow the news?
The Times concludes with a final, ridiculous challenge:
If Senate Republicans still want to filibuster, Mr. Reid should call them on it. No filibuster on this urgent a bill could withstand the certain public outrage.
I repeat, do the members of the New York Times editorial board follow the news?
Rasmussen polling s hows that 43% of those surveyed oppose the poll and only 37% support the bill. This disapproval rate is accelerating as more becomes known about this stimulus bill that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to ram through the legislative process. This is precisely why they are fear-mongering (what about that mantra of the Democrats-The Politics of Fear?) and why Barack Obama is mobilizing his supporters through emails, op-eds, and media appearances. The Democrats want to push through a pork laden bill before Americans have a chance to digest it.
The indigestion is coming and it will last years.
