Consistent Inconsistency

I have chosen not to pick on the local daily newspaper in Toledo for some time. This is not because of any pity that I feel for an industry that is suffering significant revenue losses recently or the Blade in particular because I know that they are working under difficult working conditions with recent layoffs and therefore are more than a little short-handed. 

While I do feel for the industry in general and the Blade in particular, my reasons are probably more personal and more selfish. Even such pity must end however, when the Blade shows such blatant inconsistency and consistency in its editorials. Today (1/4/08) is a classic example, with two editorials on the same day pointing the way. In the first "That sinking feeling", the Blade blames the current state of the economy on the Bush Administration, blaming the pitiable state of the economy on the Iraq war, lax oversight of financial institutions, and tax cuts. 

In the second, a guest editorial entitled "Hunting the budget snipe" from the Washington Post that it does not provide a link to on its website, then points out that the incoming Obama Administration can only fix the current budget by seeking out waste, cutting pork, and most importantly putting the brakes on entitlement programs (all no doubt also the fault of the Bush Administration). Now I know that the second editorial was not written by the Blade, but it was published by the same editors; and those of us unwashed, uneducated, and unsophisticated readers out here would like a bit of clarity. Is the economy the fault of:

• The Iraq War which the current administration must take full responsibility for?
• The oversight of the financial institutions, which the current administration warned us about years ago?
• Tax cuts encouraged by the Bush Administration which in previous economies (under either party) have done nothing but increase government revenue?
• Waste in the budget?
• Pork in the budget?
• Or entitlement programs whose budget increases have far exceeded the cost of living or inflation-adjusted budget numbers?

The inconsistency is obvious here. The problem in the economy has two vastly different causes, the Iraqi War and bad domestic policies. The Blade editorial makes no mention of the entitlement programs, pork, or waste. The Post editorial makes no mention of the War. Either both missed things which were rather significant to the other, or neither chose to look at the whole picture before going to print. 

There is one consistency however. No matter what the problem is, it is George Bush's fault. Never mind that Congress signed on (fairly enthusiastically at the time) to the War in Iraq. Never mind that oversight of the banking industry was the responsibility of Congress. Never mind that the pork and waste placed in the budget were done so by members of Congress. Never mind that the dramatic increases in entitlement programs were introduced and passed by Congress. Never mind that any tax cuts currently in place were introduced and passed by Congress. George Bush is at fault. 

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Bush does not get a free pass here. Quite the contrary. He must in fact plead guilty to abandoning Conservative principles where the budget was concerned, and in fact has seemed to encourage the horrendous increases in government spending that were once an anathema to his party. He must also plead guilty to sending troops to Iraq, and while I will not debate the merits of that choice in this post, the cost of doing so must rest to a large extent with him. 

The point here however, is that when the Blade wants to know why its readership has and is deserting it (though I still keep my subscription), it might want to look at the inconsistency of what it says and the far too apparent agenda that it consistently puts forward. Even those of us who do not travel in the rarefied circles that the Blade appears to be pandering to are getting fed up with the insult to our intelligence that both illustrate.