New York Times Bemoans UnReasonable Congressional Budget

The Mouth-foaming begins here, at the Gray Lady's lead editorial.

Note the keystone invectives:

That rara avis, the moderate Republican lawmaker, is suddenly in sight, forcefully objecting to the House leadership's abominable package of budget cuts for the poor and environmental licentiousness for the energy industry. The five-year, $54 billion proposal is headed for a floor vote this week disguised as an overdue act of fiscal responsibility and government savings. In truth, it is so over-the-top in its inequities and giveaways that embarrassed moderates are actually rebelling, withholding support unless some of the more outrageous measures - like despoiling the Alaska wildlife refuge with oil drilling - are killed.

The Republican-led Senate has already approved its own $35 billion budget-cutting measure that seems a model of moderation compared with the House's proposed mayhem. It is important to understand, however, that neither approach delivers the net savings being grandly claimed. An additional $70 billion worth of upper-bracket tax cuts heavily backed by the White House are waiting in the wings and will drive the deficit even deeper across generations of taxpayers. The administration and Congressional leaders arranged to separate votes on the two halves of the budget to obscure the full picture.

The tax-cut madness mocks the budget-hawk posture the Congressional Republicans will be claiming in the next elections. Taxpayers once wooed with promises of compassionate conservatism should pay close attention to details of the rival budget plans. Chief among them is the House's mean-spirited cut of $12 billion in Medicaid access and benefits for the poor. It would invite budget-stressed states to levy health-care copayments and pass tougher workfare rules while crimping child care, food stamps and other antipoverty programs.

The far saner Senate approach is to largely spare Medicaid but squeeze bloat from Medicare in the form of a notorious $10 billion "stabilization fund" for providers that Congress's own advisory panel has warned is a windfall gimmick. President Bush is threatening to veto the entire bill over this, but the Senate should stand fast.

As usual, the truth contradicts the deepest longings of the NYT's editorial board. That won't stop them from continuing their worship of lite socialism and environmental totalitarianism.

First of all, only the Gray Lady could see ways to increase the nation's supply of petroleum, in a time of spiraling energy costs, as something "outrageous." No, outrageous is paying the ridiculous price at the pumps many of us now pay because OPEC gauges the market. Putting aside our refining capacity for the moment, if the US can produce more petroleum, then we won't need to import quite as much. Maybe that would settle down the market. How, exactly, could it hurt?

But that's the NY Times for you: how dare we help the average American? How dare we violate the sanctity of the environment and continue our national addiction to oil? Do we Fools not understand that we must torch the internal-combustion engine and operate our economy on ethynol? Do we not see how Reasonable it is to safeguard the wilderness no matter how much we suffer for it?

Not content to spin to shrapnel Congress' support of new oil drilling, the Times rants about the House's mean-spirited cut of $12 billion in Medicaid access and benefits for the poor. Um, no. The proposed "cuts" in spending are actually reductions in future spending committments to Medicaid. They can be changed--and sadly, may be. Why sadly? The greatest contributer to Medicair and Medicaid's spiraling costs remains fraud. An estimated 25% of payments maid by the insurance trusts goes to people that don't deserve it. Who pays for this? Why, we do: through rising state expenditures and stress upon the Federal budgets that either increase taxes or deficits. Enough is enough. Trimming projected income may make the Medicaid administrators a wee more careful before doling out the doe.

But that doesn't fit the NY Times Agenda. No, we can't question the efficiency of government's efforts to level the playing field for the poor. No, every Reasonable person knows that the Nanny State can reduce economic inequality without harming the economy. And why should those that have worked hard to earn good livings mind sharing it with those that haven't--for whatever reason. Why should the poor have to account for any responsibility they may have: they're the victims of injustice, plain and simple!

Those marginalized--denied opportunities--through circumstances over which they have no control deserve our support--including a government-sponsered safety net of some kind. Those that would rather manipulate the system rather than capitalize on opportunities open to them don't. Enabling dishonesty does not alleviate poverty. Isn't it time that Reasonable institutions of MSM like the Gray Lady realize that?

Expect the socialist lite bleatings of the NY Times to continue. In fact, the more the Reasonable lose their hegemony, the louder the bleatings will come!