kolmapäev, märts 24, 2004
Balance
This is unfortunate.
I could get into a thing about how Bush did it first or the RNC lies are worse, but really this is the type of crap that just pisses me off. It's willfully dishonest, but more importantly, it's unnecessary. Bush is underfunding No Child Left Behind. We can say that without lying. We can call it an unfunded mandate. We can hit him for irresponsibility. We can do all that on the basis of facts. Yes, there is a gray area on the question of whether the full funding is truly necessary or if local school districts are just wasting what they have, but he's not giving as much as the law allows. Why do we also need to lie?
And on job training, I'd have no problem with them pointing out the cuts Bush has made and not mentioning the new program he's proposing. That seems fair. Slightly misleading, but politics is politics and Bush is cutting the program. He's cutting a major job training program. People would get that. You don't need to overreach.
The final bit about logic and the deficit strikes me as perfectly fine, though. The Democrats aren't arguing that Bush is spending too much. They're arguing that he cut revenues too much. Anyone with a basic understanding of the facts knows that the target here is the tax cuts, not education spending. And the point is that Bush proposed a major education initiative that invovled a massive boost in funding without collecting enough in taxes too pay for it. You can like the spending without liking the fiscal irresponsibility. It's not a contradiction. It's just a more complicated argument than you can fit in a 30-second web ad.
See? I told you I'd criticize Democrats sometimes.
|
This is unfortunate.
I could get into a thing about how Bush did it first or the RNC lies are worse, but really this is the type of crap that just pisses me off. It's willfully dishonest, but more importantly, it's unnecessary. Bush is underfunding No Child Left Behind. We can say that without lying. We can call it an unfunded mandate. We can hit him for irresponsibility. We can do all that on the basis of facts. Yes, there is a gray area on the question of whether the full funding is truly necessary or if local school districts are just wasting what they have, but he's not giving as much as the law allows. Why do we also need to lie?
And on job training, I'd have no problem with them pointing out the cuts Bush has made and not mentioning the new program he's proposing. That seems fair. Slightly misleading, but politics is politics and Bush is cutting the program. He's cutting a major job training program. People would get that. You don't need to overreach.
The final bit about logic and the deficit strikes me as perfectly fine, though. The Democrats aren't arguing that Bush is spending too much. They're arguing that he cut revenues too much. Anyone with a basic understanding of the facts knows that the target here is the tax cuts, not education spending. And the point is that Bush proposed a major education initiative that invovled a massive boost in funding without collecting enough in taxes too pay for it. You can like the spending without liking the fiscal irresponsibility. It's not a contradiction. It's just a more complicated argument than you can fit in a 30-second web ad.
See? I told you I'd criticize Democrats sometimes.
