Dear NYT: Why don't you cover some social spending by adding to your $2B debt?

Dear NY Times,

Your feature today entitled “Aid for Child Care Drops When It Is Needed Most” is much appreciated.

As you note,

Christian Griffith, chief consultant of the California Assembly Budget Committee, said the state cut $335 million in child care financing this year, and with hundreds of millions in cuts to other public services — courts, schools and the public university system — “there aren’t many good options at this point.”

Here is a suggestion for your editorial page and Board of Directors.  You think that providing child care for poor women is a high priority.  You and others on the left believe that the nation should continue to provide social services whether or not the nation has the resources to do so.

Why not have the New York Times Company provide or at least subsidize these services from its own till?   Yes, it is true that for the first nine months of 2011, your firm has lost $98.6 million, and it owes  $1.8 billion in various debts and pension obligations.

Yet isn’t that just what you folks are urging for a nation, which spent $3.8 trillion while taking in only $2.2 trillion? Which owes $15 trillion and counting?   We should just spend on social needs and borrow more?

Perhaps it’s time for you to take your own advice.   What’s another $20 million or even $200 million if you already owe $2 billion?   We could help you with some letters to the editor in support of it.

Very truly yours

Ashland Avenue

Here is your story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/child-care-subsidies-drop-when-families-need-them-most.html?hpw

And here are your financials:  http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007169111000012/nyt10-q9252011.htm