Asking party members to put partisanship aside lacks reason

Any political argument beginning with “put partisanship aside” is bound to be a loser. Sadly, this was the headline of a Sept. 26 editorial scolding Republicans for voting to reduce spending on the federal food stamps program.

Aside from being an empty talking point, “put partisanship aside” is essentially an order to forfeit one’s principles and capitulate to the opposing view.

“Put your partisanship aside and do what I want.”

But I digress. I’ll hold my fire on your headline department and discuss the editorial’s odd, misleading claims on its merits.

First of all, the “$40 billion cut” would occur over 10 years, not one — but you wouldn’t know it from the editorial, which curiously avoids this fact.

Second, the editorial claims Republicans seek cuts to “alleviate the country’s debt issue.” Perhaps the GOP is attempting to pay off $17 trillion in debt with $4 billion of cuts over 10 years, but it seems unlikely. I submit that House Republicans were instead seeking to reduce a culture of dependency and reassert the importance and dignity of having a job. Reasonable people can and will disagree on this view. At the very least, however, this point should have been raised in the editorial. It was completely ignored.

Third, the editorial unveils groundbreaking news by describing the food stamps program as “already restricted in terms of who is eligible.” Because of this, “it would not be reasonable to further limit the program.” In other words, because the program has restrictions on eligibility, it can never be cut. A strange argument, to be sure.

Fourth, the editorial fails to scratch the surface of what Republicans are actually proposing. As part of the 2009 stimulus bill, Democrats waived the requirement that food stamps recipients engage in some form of work activity (including a skills training program) for 20 hours a week. The Republican proposal reinstates this requirement. An editorial discussing the merits of a work requirement would have been more fruitful than blind opposition to any spending cuts whatsoever.

I understand that various welfare programs are popular items for editorial boards of college newspapers across the country. Perhaps The Daily Orange could bring attention to topics receiving less scrutiny?

But even if you choose to take a position on such low-hanging fruit, the issue should be discussed more thoroughly, with more honesty. Knee-jerk opposition to everything Republicans do, without examining the issue, does not enrich the SU community. Can’t you just put partisanship aside?

James Paul
MPA Candidate, Maxwell School