USA Today's editorialists have sided with President Barack Obama in his refusal to negotiate spending cuts for raising the debt ceiling. Republicans who insist on such deal-making are “taking the economy hostage,” the newspaper says. Allow us to translate: USA Today favors higher and higher and higher and higher (and higher) debt to pay for more and more and more and more (and more) “progressive” spending. Talk about carrying the water for intellectual vapidity. ... Lest we forget, President Hypocrite, er, Obama, was against raising the debt limit before he was for it. It was in 2006, as a U.S. senator, when he argued that raising the debt limit was “a sign of leadership failure,” slavishly surrendering our economic future to foreign countries. Go figure. ... Further showing mastery of the fundamentals of economics — AHEM! — the Obama administration once again is considering the imposition of a per-mile driving tax to replace the federal gas tax (which, by the way, now is nearly triple Big Oil's profit per dollar of sales). The Government Accountability Office says that would raise the current 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax to an effective rate of 46 cents per gallon. Another “progressive” victory for the middle class, eh? ... And this just in! The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences says it will award a special Emmy to Lance Armstrong, the disgraced doping cyclist, for single-handedly reviving the career — at least for two nights — of long-in-the-tooth entertainer Oprah Winfrey. The special Emmy statuette's globe will be replaced with a syringe filled with self-promotion.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.