Other Columns by Vincent Fiore
Vincent Fiore Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

There's no denying the ideological direction of the New York Times editorial pages. To a large extent, one sees it above the page-one fold as well, where actual news should be and opinion should not. If the Times were a car, its steering wheel would only turn one way.

But the New York Times is not a car, but a tabloid on a mission. That mission is one of progressive inclination toward all things government and policy. It is a methodical whittling down of anyone or anything associated with Republicanism or conservatism. It is a daily loathing of George W. Bush.

Maybe that's why the newspaper's string of commentary writers, like Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Nicholas Kristof, always seem to be heading in the same leftward-lurching direction, forever satisfying the partisan lust of the now-legitimized Deaniacs of the Democratic Party, and submitting to their own GOP-hating demons that populate their styluses.

Then, there is the "Learned Liberal" of the "Times," Paul Krugman.

Though not nearly as obnoxious as Maureen Dowd, nor merely noxious as Bob Herbert, Krugman bestrides the edifices of higher learning, which tends to disguise his editorial pummeling as a resonant effort.

Awash in B.A.'s and PhD's in economics from such exalted ivory towers as Yale and MIT, Krugman has painted the Bush initiative of personal accounts for Social Security as a "disinformation campaign" and he accuses the right in general of "spreading policy disinformation." (web site)

Yet for all his high-minded dagger-tossing at the president for even attempting to have an open dialogue over the insolvency of Social Security, Krugman has maintained--in numerous commentaries--that "Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."

If this is so, then why have the Democratic Party and the heavy-hitters that support it changed the formerly parroted party line of "there is no crisis" with Social Security to "Social Security is more of a problem than a crisis." (web site)

Simply put, Krugman is out to save Franklin Roosevelt's legacy regardless of the fact that his Social Security Act of 1935 cannot work in 2075. Even Krugman's liberal brethren among the mainstream media have received the dawning reality that left unattended; Social Security is headed for insolvency.

Typically, Krugman calls for tax increases on the rich, and seems to shrug off future benefit cuts as a means of saving Social Security. He further gives an example of privatization-gone-bad--via Britain--when the underlying problem in Britain seems to be widespread financial company fraud and the "20-30 percent" fees paid to financial managers.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2