Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Your editorial favors using reconciliation bills to pass comprehensive health care reform through the Senate, arguing that “the ideological split between parties is too wide” to achieve a compromise. But in your December 2005 editorial “Protecting Public Lands,” budget reconciliation bills are called “a handy hiding place for ideas that could never stand up to public scrutiny on their own.”

If it is wrong to legislate through this backdoor channel on a relatively minor issue like whether the holders of mining claims should be allowed to buy public land rather than leasing it, isn’t it even worse to enact legislation affecting the health of millions of people through this same method?

Furthermore, how can one square this view with your March 2005 editorial “Walking in the Opposition’s Shoes,” which calls the filibuster a “peculiar but effective form of government”?

Galen Simmons
New York, Aug. 30, 2009

Note from KBJ: Trying to hold the editorial board of the New York Times to a standard of consistency is like trying to get a puppy to be still. Remember: To progressives, the end justifies the means. Consistency, like the rule of law, is to be dispensed with when inconvenient.