Who's Giving Liberals a Bad Name? - The Post, of Course!
The editorial writers from the Washington Post are starting to give liberals a bad name. Today's (10/3) half-witted editorial in favor of higher taxes for transportation proves the point. The latest rant fails to address just what taxpayers in Virginia would actually receive from higher taxes. The writers talk about money for roads and money for Metro, but they don't provide any specific benefits that would flow to taxpayers from the higher taxes. For example, would a billion in higher taxes mean that the Outer Loop of the Beltway would never have a Level of Service (LOS) worse than a D? Would the provision of a dedicated $50 million each year for WMATA mean no more four-car trains during rush hour or a penny reduction in the Fairfax County real estate tax? Reasonable people could evaluate whether the benefits outweighed the costs in these instances.
The Post's editors never address those type of issues. They presume that just taking more money from the private sector (our checkbooks) and sending it to the public sector is a good in and of itself, such that no further explanation is required.
This arrogant writing is an insult to the principled liberals in our community. Over the years, I've read and heard liberal arguments in favor of raising taxes, which have generally been coupled with some measurable goal. I've heard liberals call for tax increases to provide health insurance for X number of children. Or read tax increase pleas to reduce college tuition by Y% for a state's Z number of college students. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of these proposals, but it is refreshing to see a detailed proposal, with both costs and benefits articulated. A conservative can disagree with, but still respect, a well-thought-out and complete liberal plan for expanding government. This leads to reasoned public debate, which serves the public interest.
Not so with the Post's editorial writers. No explanation is required. The readers must simply accept the Post's truth as written. Their smug, but hollow, editorials are giving a bad name to liberals. But the Post's goal is not reasoned debate, but only higher taxes. What a shame for an otherwise good newspaper.
The Post's editors never address those type of issues. They presume that just taking more money from the private sector (our checkbooks) and sending it to the public sector is a good in and of itself, such that no further explanation is required.
This arrogant writing is an insult to the principled liberals in our community. Over the years, I've read and heard liberal arguments in favor of raising taxes, which have generally been coupled with some measurable goal. I've heard liberals call for tax increases to provide health insurance for X number of children. Or read tax increase pleas to reduce college tuition by Y% for a state's Z number of college students. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of these proposals, but it is refreshing to see a detailed proposal, with both costs and benefits articulated. A conservative can disagree with, but still respect, a well-thought-out and complete liberal plan for expanding government. This leads to reasoned public debate, which serves the public interest.
Not so with the Post's editorial writers. No explanation is required. The readers must simply accept the Post's truth as written. Their smug, but hollow, editorials are giving a bad name to liberals. But the Post's goal is not reasoned debate, but only higher taxes. What a shame for an otherwise good newspaper.
posted by Toomanytaxes at 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home