In the middle of an informative piece explaining how President Bush's effort to privatize many government functions did not save money, the Post tells readers that "Bush entered office with a deep skepticism of government. He saw competitive sourcing as a way to improve agencies' performance." Is that right? How does the Post know that President Bush had a "deep skepticism" of government? How does it know that he thought outsourcing jobs to the private sector would really improve performance? Yes, President Bush said these things, but does the Post think that politicians really believe everything they say? Would a president who has a deep skepticism of government be so anxious to invade and occupy two different countries in his first two years in office? Maybe President Bush really does have a deep skepticism of government, but let me suggest an alternative explanation. President Bush received considerable political support from companies that hoped to make lots of money from government contracts. I don't know if my alternative explanation is right, but the Post doesn't know that their explanation is right either, unless they are mind readers and can know President Bush's true thoughts. How about if they just told their readers what President Bush said and who profited from his actions and let their readers make their own judgments about his motives?
--Dean Baker