Headline in today's Washington Post: "Was politics behind the government's decision to preserve the UAW's pensions?"
Derrrr, ya think?
For months, this has been a simmering cause celebre on the right, with critics accusing the Obama administration of paying off its union backers -- and echoing white-collar retirees' demand for the same deal the UAW got. Now, at the insistence of Republicans in Congress, Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for taxpayer bailout funds, has pledged to investigate "whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees."
Indeed, many people have been asking these questions. Here's a question: where has the Washington Post been for the last year?
[W]hy did the administration make pension obligations to the UAW sacrosanct in the first place? We're talking a massive cost burden worth tens of billions of dollars.
I love how they finally ask this question as if they've just uncovered a big news story. Click here to read the Washington Post's epiphany editorial.
(I recommend reading the hilarious comments, including this one: "Hard to know what's more ridiculous, that WaPo should imagine that is a question anyone could answer in the negative, or that WaPo didn't get around to confronting it until a year and a half after the deed was done. Look for the follow-up article tomorrow: Was Lincoln Felled By An Assassin's Bullet?"