The 50-year look back
The Quincy Herald-Whig has a reputation for endorsing candidates from both political parties. It tends to side with incumbents and the status-quo, but that isn't surprising for a newspaper that aims for the political center.
Seen from my thoroughly objective perspective, however, it is guilty of short-sightedness.
Take the HW's recent endorsement of Aaron Schock (R) for the US House from Illinois' 18th district. We'll dive right into their reasons for thinking he would be superior to his Democratic opponent, D.K. "Deirdre" Hirner:
"During his freshman term in Congress, Schock established himself as a respected voice for his district, a supporter of critical infrastructure and a vote for fiscally conservative government in the mold of [former Congressman and current Transportation Secretary] LaHood."
What to make of this? Well, do stifle any huzzahs for local pork, the "critical infrastructure" the endorsement cites. Pork is what any Congressman or -woman would bring home if they wanted to be re-elected. No, the real difference, assuming both candidates are adequate to the task, lies with the paper's term "fiscally conservative government". For that, we refer to the paper's article on the two candidates from the day before.
"[Schock] said government's role is to provide an environment that "minimizes risk and allows the private sector to thrive. However, Schock said that's not what has happened during the past two years under a Democratic majority in Congress."
"Legislation like cap-and-trade, record deficit spending, the health care bill and financial regulations have only added to the uncertainty in the private sector and caused entrepreneurs and businessmen to pull back and stop hiring."
Taking a first bite: Any objective analysis of the past two years can't ignore the intense anxiety that was the financial crisis and near-depression of '08-'09. So, the fact that the economy has been stabilized, with 1-3% GDP for the past year or so, and a financial sector that isn't bringing the world to a screeching halt, means, one would think, that "risk minimization" has been effected.
Strike one.
And what about "legislation like cap-and-trade"? We'll call this a "Ball". The legislation in question, once 'adjusted' by the Senate, would have had such things as taxpayer underwriting of the nuclear power industry, just when nuclear power has been left behind, price-wise, by other power sources. And considering nuclear power's history of cost escalations during construction, cap-and-trade could easily have amounted to an enormous financial liability, due to the need to horse-trade. The last thing this country needs is an army of white elephants sitting idle, while electricity prices go through the roof.
"Record deficit spending". This is strike two for Schock. The legacy of the years of Republican domination in Congress is a massive deficit fueled by an enormous expansion of Medicare (the addition of a drug benefit), a huge expenditure overseas (Remember when Republicans were quibbling with John Kerry about his $200 billion price tag for the Iraq war? How about five times that amount?) and of course the infamous Bush Tax Cuts.
Since Bush left office in January '09, with the economy shedding jobs at its fastest pace in the entire, sad recession, the Democratic majorities in Congress witnessed Bush's bailout of the financial sector paid back and the economy brought back from the brink. Though health care legislation was passed during this period, it will not take effect for another three years.
And the "health care bill"? We'll call that a foul ball. It hasn't come into being yet, so we can't be sure how it will affect the deficit. Except, this is where the serious money is. The status quo will mean deficits that are 2-3 times what we have now. So, something need be done. And it can be argued that the Democrats put in place some good deficit reduction tools that we all hope will work.
That leaves us with a 1-2 count and just 'financial regulation' left. And again, we'll call it a foul ball that Schock only just barely get's a piece of. Simply put, why would Wall Street fight so hard, opposing new regulations, if, as appears likely, their profits will be unaffected? Perhaps they simply prefer the old system that...whoops...just about crashed the world economy.
Ah, but what about Schock's contention that the above perceived failings on the part of the Democrats has led to "...uncertainty in the private sector and that this uncertainty has "...caused entrepreneurs and businessmen to pull back and stop hiring"? That, my friends, is strike three. For it just isn't true. Polls of business sentiment have shown that what is keeping business managers from hiring more workers is that people just aren't buying at the rate that would warrant greater production. "...uncertainty..." in other words, is perhaps a minor concern, but more like an explanation in service of the 'risk minimization' theory. When, in reality, the economy is in much better shape than it was in January '09.
It has become a cliche, but do we really want leaders who see things the way George Bush saw them? I think not, and in fifty years endorsements such as the Whig's of Schock will be seen as good examples of how conventional thinking had lost it's way.
