Kudos to Yahoo! for this headline on their homepage yesterday:
More than anything this exposes the emptiness of the Democratic and left-wing bellyaching about the deal and reminds those of us who wish to reduce the size and scope of the federal government that we still have our work cut out to us.
But, at least Yahoo!’s Chris Moody is acknowledging that in Washington-ese a spending cut is not a reduction in the current level of spending, but a reduction of projected future spending:
Much of the problem has to do with the language of Washington, which, you might have noticed, is different from the speech you hear almost every other place on Earth. When most politicians talk of “cutting” spending, they don’t always literally mean that they intend to reduce current spending levels. Instead, under this version of fiscal discipline, Congress merely agrees not to spend as much money as it initially had planned. Once that deal is struck lawmakers then turn around to sell their proposals as “cuts.”
Take the “debt ceiling deal” President Obama signed on Tuesday. Let’s say that the federal government, when all is said and done, actually slows the growth of spending by $2 trillion over a decade–the minimum amount promised. After 10 years’ time, if all $2 trillion is not spent, there will actually be an increase of about $1.8 trillion.
Read the whole thing, especially for the video on the minuscule nature of the cuts in the recent deal.
In the coverage of the Reagan budget “cuts” in the 1980s, we only saw such candor in the conservative media.
UPDATE: So, the “public backlash” the president is enduring from his liberal base over the deal is anger that spending increases aren’t going to be as large as forecast?