Last week I pointed out how simplistic the editorials that address the state's budget crisis have been. After all, newspapers are supposed to be indispensable and the editorials are written by highly-paid and well trained professionals. Furthermore, since they are written anonymously, you would think that the writer would be willing to take some risks and since the editorials are written on dead trees, space is precious, so you would think that they would read like a Robert Frost poem--well written, evocative and compelling. Instead, they read like they've been written by high school interns.
Here's what I wrote last week.
Yet instead of offering real solutions, the editorial boards--which were eerily quiet while Governor Napolitiano got us into this mess--are offering simple bromides and tired metaphors. Every program is an "investment" so don't kill the body by using an ax, chain saw, starvation etc.
Cue this morning's Republic.
The emergency surgery on the 2009 budget went too far. The Legislature's plan, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on Saturday, cuts so deeply into muscle that it weakens Arizona's future.
Wow, that's clever. Get it? The "cuts" are beyond mere "surgery;" the Republicans are cutting "muscle." I've never heard it put quite that way before.
In addition to rehashing the same cliched metaphors, the writer uses a little slight of hand to assume away the problem. Here's a great trick that you could never get away with in the blogosphere.
Arizona must consider every possible way to treat this huge but temporary problem and then choose the best mix to minimize lasting side effects.
Temporary? Governor Napolitano has been claiming the downturn was temporary since 2006. In fact, her failed gamble that the downturn was "temporary" is one of the reasons the state is in so much trouble now.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal pointed out that in developed nations, the average cycle for a downturn this deep was five years from TOP TO TROUGH. That means, we may have another 2 years before the bottom. So while the revenue shortfall maybe "temporary," it's probably another five years of
Other levels of government have avoided the "temporary" ploy and are in much better shape. I heard Phoenix City Manage Frank Fairbanks on KJZZ last week and he made a great point. "The earlier you cut, the less you have to cut." If you can cut a program over a 16 month period instead of a 12 month period. You can cut LESS of the program. Napolitano refused to make real cuts because she gambled that revenue would come screaming back, so now the cuts are much deeper than they would have been otherwise.
Now, in the face of this history, the Republic warns us that the crisis is "temporary."
So does our anonymous editorial writer have a solution? After all it's pretty easy to complain that cuts are too deep and programs are important, but that doesn't balance the budget. Indeed, the writer offers a menu of options.
Everything should be on the table for 2010. Reorganizing for greater efficiencies. Using toll roads. Maximizing the use of technology. And as a last resort - if the only other option is gutting essential functions and jeopardizing Arizona's future - the list should include the T-word. Re-examining tax breaks. Deferring the roll out of tax cuts. Revamping and broadening the tax system.
"Reorganizing for greater efficiencies?" Wow, let's make government more efficient. Why didn't anyone else think of that? When the Republic can show me a couple hundred million dollars of efficiency savings, that result from "reorganizing" then this will be a credible point, until then, it's simply a throw away campaign slogan.
Toll roads are actually a good idea. They won't do anything to solve this budget crisis, but they have potential for the next decade or so.
Then we get to the really lame part--the "T-word." The Republic is willing to use the "T-word" but they are unwilling to use the "I-word." How many ways can our gutless anonymous, well paid professional journalist discuss taxes admitting that he wants to "Increase" them? Instead admitting that he is "increasing" taxes, he's calling for "re-examining," "deferring," "revamping" and "broadening."
Isn't that ironic? He tries to look all macho by mentioning the "T-word," and then ducks behind code talk so he doesn't have to admit that he's calling for a tax increase. He also fails to tell us how he would get the two thirds vote needed to pass a tax increase.
Finally we get to the last paragraph
With a June 30 deadline for crafting a budget, we have time for thoughtful analysis. But we have no time to waste on rhetoric and grandstanding.
Who is wasting time on grandstanding and rhetoric? The author hasn't made that allegation. In fact, he's concerned that the legislature is doing too much. The cuts are too deep.
Where did that last sentence come from? Actually, that last sentence is what happens when you have an extra space at the bottom of the editorial and realize that you have to add another line so it doesn't look funny at the bottom.
Dude, what's your point?
What's the point of all this? I had lunch with a client yesterday and he mentioned that something important about our democracy is going to be lost if the newspapers actually go a way. I paused for a moment and asked "what would that be?"
People have this vague notion that it's important to have newspapers. Ok, that's fine in theory, but let me encourage you to actually look at the content of newspapers, not just view them in the abstract.
Today's Republic editorial adds nothing to the debate. It is poorly written and filled with weak analysis. While it manages to heap vague criticism on the legislature, it offers no real solutions and actually furthers some of the mispreceptions that have led to the current problem.
It's like someone threw a switch..."Napolitano's gone, Republicans in Charge, must be critical of budget process." Where wher they six months ago...or for the last 6 years?
Newspapers have abdicated their position as the watchdog or the fourth estate. The readers have noticed and they are voting with their feet. So while most Americans have a vague notion that newspapers are important, they don't read them and they sure as heck don't subscribe to them.
Soon they will be gone, and as today's Republic editorial demonstrates, it won't be much of a loss.
By the way, Gannett closed under $5 yesterday while Lee Enterprises (which owns the Star) is currently trading at 28 cents a share. So while our intrepid writer was willing to use the T-word but unwilling to use the I-word. His paper is about to have a lot of experience with the "B-word"
Recent Comments