New York Times Endorses Bush: And Other Sure Signs the World is Ending

I have come to resent being forced to read the New York Times every Tuesday and Friday in politics class. It's not that we shouldn't practice ignoring thinly veiled liberal filth; it's that we are never exposed to the opposite end of the spectrum…or even the middle. Granted, there are not many right-leaning newspapers for Mr. Monty to choose from so I can't really blame him. (Only the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times come to mind.)

The thing that bothers me is that the Times actually pretends to be objective. I worry that stupid people (there's lots) might be swayed by what they perceive to be a balanced look at the political news. But I've actually heard people argue on behalf of the Newspaper of Record, feverishly asserting that it is balanced and is a good reflection of America's political climate. Even Dan Rather has described the paper as "middle of the road". This, however, can be disproved with some simple fact: The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for the presidency in over 50 years. Even in 1972, when George McGovern ended up winning only a single state, the New York Times earnestly endorsed the Democrat.

In covering political news that is similar to both parties, the Times is consistently inconsistent in its viewpoint. Somehow, the inconsistency always champions the liberal cause. When Democratic Senator Richard Shelby became a Republican in 1994, the times referred to his move as a "desertion" and "opportunism". I am in no way in favor of any politician switching parties without giving the voters a chance to decide whether they want them serving that particular platform. But just look how the Times described Jim Jeffords when he switched out of the Republican Party in 2001. In order to make sure that they did not actually utter the words themselves, the good people at the New York Times quoted a professor of political science as saying that Jeffords was "a man of tremendous sincerity, and that came across today." Wow…Shelby was a deserter and an opportunist but Jeffords was a "man of tremendous sincerity". (Just a note: I do not have a problem with bias, as long as it is kept to the op-ed page.)

There are so many more examples of the Times' left-wing bias, but I don't have the stamina to cite any more. Plus, I think I have made my point. If Mr. Monty showed us speeches by Pat Robertson, our intake of viewpoints could maybe then be summarized as moderately liberal.

On Tax Cuts

Tax cuts can only be a good thing for our country, no matter what way you look at it. When people work hard, they should be rewarded. In fact, the entire idea of a progressive tax system doesn’t make sense. With the current political environment, it would be impossible to revamp the entire system; therefore tax cuts are the next best thing. Tax cuts encourage entrepreneurship. When the government can take away more than half of your paycheck, there is less incentive to work towards success. Historically, our country would not have risen to its robust economic stature had it not been for the belief that, with enough determination and hard work, anybody could make a fortune.

While I loathe excess government spending, its proponents should actually support tax cuts. History has proven that lower tax rates actually bring in greater tax revenue for the government. This is due to the economic expansion and spending that takes place when Americans are allowed to keep their own money. When people make more money, there is more money to tax, even at a lesser rate. After President Kennedy cut taxes in 1961, the inflation-adjusted revenue actually grew by 33 percent between 1961 and 1968. This same phenomenon occurred following the major tax cuts imposed under President Reagan in 1981. The tax revenue of 1981, $286 billion, rose to $446 billion by 1989, a 56 percent increase. Even taking into account the inflation rate, 4 percent annually during that same period, this increase is very significant.

As President Bush tried to push his tax cuts through, one cry of dissent was heard over and over: that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy. While it is true that wealthy Americans received greater tax breaks, one need only to look at the distribution of tax burden to understand why. When the bottom 60 percent of the population pays a combined 8 percent of the federal income taxes, it would be extremely difficult, not to mention unfair, to give them the largest cuts. In my opinion, tax cuts should not be an issue, but rather a policy.

The Liberal Paradox

It took a maddening discussion with our good pal Cannon for me to finally realize the full potential of liberal paradox. Now here’s where the problem arises. Most liberals…uhh, yeah I’m generalizing…tend to think that our country should focus less on unimportant endeavors like fighting terrorism in Iraq and more on domestic concerns like poverty. Despite the fact that 25 million Iraqis were recently liberated from their oppression under a brutal dictator, many liberals do not think it was worth the money. Meanwhile, they push for an increase in the entitlement budget, which is already nearly $1 Trillion, so that alcoholics on the street are ensured adequate amounts of booze. This entitlement cost, seven times the cost of war in Iraq, has never once liberated 25 million people. Yet, liberals complain about the astronomical costs of our efforts overseas. Now here’s where I’m confused. What happened to the lovers of human rights and advocates of human dignity over there on the left? You know…the same ones that lay restless in their beds because Usama’s henchman may not be given enough hugs at GITMO. That’s paradox number one.

In order to justify himself (or feverishly dig himself out of the pit in which he was implanted), good old Cannon contended that we should not spend money liberating others because we can’t worry about the rest of the world…we need just take care of ourselves. If I was confused before, I am now bewildered. I can still hear the echo of liberal demands that we appease the world community and put the interests of France, Germany, and Russia before attacking. Suddenly, this spirit of universal-ism, this spirit of consideration for the others on the globe disappears when it comes to actually helping other people. The only conclusion I can draw is that they’re scared. Maybe if they continue to pretend that people like Saddam really aren’t threats to humanity, they can continue living in the dream where nobody is mean and everybody likes us. Only problem is…when they wake up, they may be slowly rising to the sky looking down on plumes of smoke in the shape of a mushroom.