Washington Post v. New York Times on Social Security - Jack Kemp
By Jack Kemp
The recent middleweight title match between reigning champ Bernard Hopkins and the "Golden Boy" Oscar De La Hoya was billed as an historical event, one for the ages, like Hagler-Leonard circa 1987. Unfortunately for boxing fans the event didn't meet expectations. In the political world the opposite has occurred, a little billed, and even less noticed, bout between two print-media heavyweights the Washington Post and New York Times is taking place. In that fight these two media titans that have taken just about opposite corners on one of the most pressing domestic issues of our time -- Social Security reform.
In the red corner stands the Washington Post. Its editorial page has historically leaned liberal-left, but they have also taken decidedly principled and nuanced positions on issues such as school choice, international trade and, now, Social Security reform. Recently the Post editorialized that, "Mr. Bush's sympathizers are right that Social Security privatization could reduce long-term deficits, and right that the nation should not be deterred by the transition costs." It's a shame Kerry's campaign didn't "read the memo" before they put him on the line for higher payroll taxes.
The Washington Post also discarded the class-warfare mantra that has consumed Democratic candidates and party loyalists reasoning that: "Privatization could also stimulate economic growth, boosting tax revenues and so strengthening the nation's fiscal prospects via a second route." They continued, "Private accounts would boost national savings" thus "savings would become more plentiful," which, in turn, would "stimulate extra corporate investment and growth." Not bad, eh? A "semi-supply-side" position.
In the blue corner stands the reigning, but aging, champ, the New York Times. The Times editorial page is the most read and one of the most liberal pages in print today. It has stood with liberal orthodoxy regardless of the facts -- or regardless of a "preponderance of evidence" as Dan Rather and CBS might say (read this)
The recent middleweight title match between reigning champ Bernard Hopkins and the "Golden Boy" Oscar De La Hoya was billed as an historical event, one for the ages, like Hagler-Leonard circa 1987. Unfortunately for boxing fans the event didn't meet expectations. In the political world the opposite has occurred, a little billed, and even less noticed, bout between two print-media heavyweights the Washington Post and New York Times is taking place. In that fight these two media titans that have taken just about opposite corners on one of the most pressing domestic issues of our time -- Social Security reform.
In the red corner stands the Washington Post. Its editorial page has historically leaned liberal-left, but they have also taken decidedly principled and nuanced positions on issues such as school choice, international trade and, now, Social Security reform. Recently the Post editorialized that, "Mr. Bush's sympathizers are right that Social Security privatization could reduce long-term deficits, and right that the nation should not be deterred by the transition costs." It's a shame Kerry's campaign didn't "read the memo" before they put him on the line for higher payroll taxes.
The Washington Post also discarded the class-warfare mantra that has consumed Democratic candidates and party loyalists reasoning that: "Privatization could also stimulate economic growth, boosting tax revenues and so strengthening the nation's fiscal prospects via a second route." They continued, "Private accounts would boost national savings" thus "savings would become more plentiful," which, in turn, would "stimulate extra corporate investment and growth." Not bad, eh? A "semi-supply-side" position.
In the blue corner stands the reigning, but aging, champ, the New York Times. The Times editorial page is the most read and one of the most liberal pages in print today. It has stood with liberal orthodoxy regardless of the facts -- or regardless of a "preponderance of evidence" as Dan Rather and CBS might say (read this)
posted by butterfly @ 11:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home