The NYT Discovers the National Debt
November 23, 2009 | filed in: Politics
The New York Times published an article today that is
entitled, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at least,
“U.S. Debt Costs May Soon Soar.” I don’t have time
for a long response today, so allow me this brief
response.
The Herald-Tribune attached this subhead, “Does Uncle Sam basically have a $12 trillion adjustable rate mortgage?” The article and that subhead make it pretty clear that the national debt is a new discover for liberal newspapers.
Oh, by the way, NYT and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, welcome to the Tea Party movement.
The article is mostly a well-written essay on the frightening implications of having such a gargantuan (if there is a more appropriate adjective, I don’t know what it is) debt, but it falls down on three points.
First, it doesn’t mention the possibility that other nations (China, really) might decide to stop buying our debt, and the complete chaos that would ensue if they did.
Second, even though the deficit under the Obama administration is exploding to unprecedented levels, what with the trillion-dollar “stimulus” package, and now Obama’s government takeover of healthcare, not once is Obama’s name mentioned.
Third, it tries to make the case that the massive spending by the man-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned was “widely judged to have been a necessary response.” Yet, no one is quoted to support that claim, and the Obama Administration’s own estimates and data show it to be, without question, a miserable failure:
When a liberal newspaper uses the words, “widely judged” or “the science is settled” or “most experts agree,” you can be pretty sure that “widely judged” should be qualified with “in our newsroom,” that the science is anything but settled, and that “most experts” refers to either some sort of wishful abstraction or to the kind of “experts” that frequent the same cocktail parties as NYT editors.
While liberals may be just now discovering the national debt (actually, I should say, “rediscovering” since they had a similar awakening when it came to the cost of the Iraq war), I am pretty confident that they will forget all about it when it comes to reducing spending, but it will be front-and-center when it comes to the idea of raising taxes. In fact, my well-seasoned cynicism tells me that this is what the article is really about: pin no blame for the exploding deficit on Obama, but provide him cover when he raises taxes. Just wait.
The Herald-Tribune attached this subhead, “Does Uncle Sam basically have a $12 trillion adjustable rate mortgage?” The article and that subhead make it pretty clear that the national debt is a new discover for liberal newspapers.
Oh, by the way, NYT and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, welcome to the Tea Party movement.
The article is mostly a well-written essay on the frightening implications of having such a gargantuan (if there is a more appropriate adjective, I don’t know what it is) debt, but it falls down on three points.
First, it doesn’t mention the possibility that other nations (China, really) might decide to stop buying our debt, and the complete chaos that would ensue if they did.
Second, even though the deficit under the Obama administration is exploding to unprecedented levels, what with the trillion-dollar “stimulus” package, and now Obama’s government takeover of healthcare, not once is Obama’s name mentioned.
Third, it tries to make the case that the massive spending by the man-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned was “widely judged to have been a necessary response.” Yet, no one is quoted to support that claim, and the Obama Administration’s own estimates and data show it to be, without question, a miserable failure:
When a liberal newspaper uses the words, “widely judged” or “the science is settled” or “most experts agree,” you can be pretty sure that “widely judged” should be qualified with “in our newsroom,” that the science is anything but settled, and that “most experts” refers to either some sort of wishful abstraction or to the kind of “experts” that frequent the same cocktail parties as NYT editors.
While liberals may be just now discovering the national debt (actually, I should say, “rediscovering” since they had a similar awakening when it came to the cost of the Iraq war), I am pretty confident that they will forget all about it when it comes to reducing spending, but it will be front-and-center when it comes to the idea of raising taxes. In fact, my well-seasoned cynicism tells me that this is what the article is really about: pin no blame for the exploding deficit on Obama, but provide him cover when he raises taxes. Just wait.