Reading the WSJ Editorial Pages

So You Don’t Have To

Every now and then the Editorial Section of the WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/

(somewhat restricted, as well it should be)

has a series of discussions so unintelligible, so incomprehensible and so lacking clarity and thought that they just invite comment. That happened on May 12.  So, invitation accepted.

The Main Editorial is an attack on Mitt Romney for his design and support of health care reform in Massachusetts.  Now even though both the citizens and third party reviews of the Massachusetts plan are generally favorable, the WSJ is appalled and wants Mr. Romney to, well, they don’t really say what they want him to do.  Since the Dismal Political Economists thinks that in the end Mr. Romney will be the Journal’s preferred candidate this appears to be a little pre-election beating, to make sure the malleable Mr. Romney comes around to the Journal’s way of thinking, which of course the malleable Mr. Romney is expected to do.

John Cogan, from the Hoover Institution (gee, wonder what his politics are?) complains about retirees today getting more in real terms from Social Security than those who retired earlier and somehow blames the COLA adjustment.  Apparently Mr. Cogan does not understand that this is the way SS is designed to work. Benefits increase with increases in real income.  He then goes on to endorse the Ryan Plan of replacing Medicare with private, individual insurance plans.  In his world apparently insurance companies are lined up to provide coverage for elderly persons and their high medical bills.  Unfortunately his world is not our world.

David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey write about how Congress should raise the debt ceiling but that the increase can only be used for borrowing to service existing obligations.  No not only does the Dismal Political Economist not understand what this means, he doubts if Rivkin and Casey do either.  Another violation of the Dismal Political Economist’s rule that in a discussion at least one party ought to know what they are talking about.

They also argue that Congress, well really the Republican House, should take back control over spending.  Apparently they fail to understand that no Federal spending can take place without Congressional approval.  You would think that the qualifications for writing opinion pieces would be a little more stringent.

Karl Rove has a nice piece, (yes he really does) on paying tribute to the passengers of on Flight 93 that stopped that plane from crashing into government buildings.