In his latest U.S. News column, editor Mortimer Zuckerman presumes to speak for the American people:
We do want an equitable healthcare system,
sensible funding of entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid) that consume more than 40 percent of the federal budget
today and 70 percent by 2030 ? an intolerable burden to pass on to our
children.
Let’s not quibble with that assessment here. If one takes Zuckerman’s assertions as true, one wonders why he included this statement in the following (generally complimentary) paragraph about Sen. Clinton:
She focuses on programs to assist middle- and working-class families….
Isn’t it precisely because of “programs to assist middle- and working-class families” that federal entitlements consume so much of the federal budget today? Wouldn’t the most appropriate solution to the entitlement funding problem involve limiting entitlements to the truly needy? How can new programs “assisting” middle- and working-class families address the problem Zuckerman highlights?
Most importantly, how could he write those two sentences in succeeding paragraphs without noticing the contradiction?
