It takes gall...

Editorial
Hiding Behind Katrina
Published: October 21, 2005
NY Times

"It takes gall to use Hurricane Katrina as cover to undermine the democratic process, but that's what conservative ideologues are attempting in the House. Among their budget-cutting proposals - being sold as "tough choices" for America to pay for the Gulf Coast recovery - is a startling plan to kill public financing in the presidential election system.

That program, financed by $3 checkoffs volunteered by taxpayers on their returns, has been a bulwark of presidential elections. It was enacted about 30 years ago, after the Watergate scandal exposed the big-money bagmen corrupting the heart of the political process. It makes politics more competitive for underdogs, more involving for the public and less reliant on floods of special-interest campaign money.

Congress should indeed turn its attention to the program - not to end it, but to repair its outdated limits. The primary calendar has become so front-loaded that the candidates with the strongest sources of private donations are now choosing to skip the limitations of public financing so they can spend early and furiously, leaving other challengers at a disadvantage.

The primary subsidy formula needs to be made more realistic to level the field, and the checkoff amount should be increased. Candidates should not be allowed to have it both ways by feeding on private money in the primaries, then switching to public money in the general election, as President Bush and Senator John Kerry did last year.

Under the current system, participating candidates in the primaries receive matching funds for the first $250 of each private contribution. This one-to-one formula should be increased to two-to-one matching or more as a way to invite more of the small donations that began showing up impressively last year from Internet users.

Sponsors of the House proposal must know they are wrong because they are trying to tuck the change into a budget bill without a public hearing and debate. If they want budget cuts, they should focus on government waste, not open elections."

The author of this editorial is saying that the conservatives are going about budget cutting in the wrong way, and dishonestly. The way they start out is effective because it’s something that everyone can agree on, “It takes gall to use Hurricane Katrina as cover to undermine the democratic process.” They then explain what it is that’s the conservatives are trying to change. This argument is not saying that the public funding of the presidential should not be changed, just changed in a completely different way than the conservatives want to.

The writer explains pretty well why his idea is better than the conservative one. They say that we need the public funding to avoid corruption, and the level the playing field for candidates. Those are both things I think most people would agree with. Using common sense to explain your argument seems to be helpful in getting people to at least see your side, if not getting them to agree with you. The writer also seems to be trying not to take sides. They point out that both Bush and Kerry used a strategy for raising money that the writer disagrees with. If they were trying to say that the liberals were always right they would have left out Kerry.

I think the last paragraph is very effective. It is using a fact, that there are no public hearings about this subject, to say that the conservatives will know that people won’t like their idea. The writer says they “must know they are wrong.” This is a good point, in my opinion, and helps steer readers toward agreeing with the writer.