It’s so nice to see the NY Times isn’t bothering to hide its biases any more. The latest example is a subtle dig at Republicans in an Op-Ed urging Democrats to go it alone on health care using a parliamentary manuever that would end up with them only requiring a simple majority to get health care passed. Completely ignoring the fact that the Democrats have more than a simple majority in both houses, and the reason they can’t get this health care bill rammed through is because Democrats are against it (if they weren’t, we’d have it already), here’s the dig I was talking about with the Times…
If Mr. Obama is reaching out for broader support, he may be too diplomatic to point out the cynicism of Republican opponents who are late-blooming advocates of deficit reduction. The Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress enacted a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will cost the government almost $1 trillion over the next decade without raising or saving a penny to pay for it.
Wow… So since Bush did it, it’s okay?
See, here are a few inconvenient details about that paragraph…
The NY Times was in favor of the expansion of prescription drug coverage by Medicare under the Bush administration. Moreso, most of the Republicans they’re chastising now were either not in the House or Senate at the time, and a sizeable number of them were not in favor of the bill. Majority rules, though, right? Think about it; they’re bemoaning something they agreed with passing through Congress on a simple majority.
Hypocritical, much?
Secondly, 1 trillion dollars over the next ten years is something groanworthy from the Times? The health care bill is projected to be $3 trillion and the only things we’ve heard to pay for it are a tax on Rainbow-crapping unicorns that can pay for all things (ie: the rich) and some cuts to the same Medicare Advantage program the Times is bemoaning as adding to the deficit. There isn’t one economist, agency, or analyst who believes these measures will pay for the bill. Additionally, the President knowing this has said that he won’t pass a bill that adds to the deficit.
Well now that that’s all put to rest, we can stop worrying. After all, when it comes to numerical projections, the government is always spot-on.
Then there’s this bit of brilliance…
They also passed tax cuts for wealthy Americans that will cost more than $1.7 trillion over 10 years, again without making provisions to offset the costs. Now they are complaining that $1 trillion for health care reform — fully paid for over the next 10 years — is too much to spend on a problem that has been festering for decades.
Ahhh yes… Class warfare by the Times. So original… Here’s the rub, though…
I saw no objections from the Times when, in the midst of a declining economy, President Obama offered $1000 per child to families making as little as $3000 and now that the national debt has tripled in a mere 8 months of the Great Onetm running the show, I think the time to talk about President Bush and his policies have pretty much ended. Unemployment is at a 23 year high, the deficit is out of control, people aren’t working, banks aren’t lending, and despite the cries of “it’s turning around! Look!” nothing has changed since we bought two car companies a bunch of banks and thousands of mortgages for people too stupid to understand that just because they want a house doesn’t mean they can buy one.
And on top of all this we want to give the government another blank check, this time to insure 300 million people, 250 million of which already have insurance?
Wow. All that fun in one parliamentary maneuver.