The Washington Post doesn't seem to think they will. In an article on the creation of a special deficit commission that will issue a report that will be voted on after the November election, the Post tells readers that: "the commission would deliver its recommendations after this fall's congressional elections, postponing potentially painful decisions about the nation's fiscal future until after Democrats face the voters." If the purpose of this arrangement is to allow members of Congress to support positions like cutting Social Security and Medicare, which are highly unpopular, then the point is that the commission's proposals will be voted on after members of both parties have faced voters. It is hard to understand why the Post just noted that the commission proposal will be voted on by Congress after Democrats face voters. This front page article is littered with adjectives more appropriate for an editorial. For example, the first sentence begins: "faced with growing alarm over the nation's soaring debt." There is no reason for the word "soaring," to appear in this article. It expresses the paper's opinion, it does not provide information to readers. In the second paragraph the Post tells readers that the proposed commission would be: "granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." The word "massive" also expresses the Post's opinion, it is not providing information to readers. Remarkably, the article never once mentions the collapse of the housing bubble, the fallout from which is projected to add more than $3 trillion to the nation's debt. It is worth noting that all the proponents of this special commission dismissed concerns about the housing bubble when there was still time for the government to take action to prevent the damage it has now caused to the economy and the government's finances. The Post recently entered into an arrangement to print "news" articles from a news service started by Peter Peterson, the Wall Street investment banker and longtime foe of Social Security and Medicare. In defending this arrangement its editors argued that the material produced by Peterson's news service would be no different than the material it produces itself on these programs. This front page article seem designed to prove this point.
--Dean Baker
