And the article is no better than the headline. Take a gander at the first paragraph:
President Barack Obama on Monday sent Congress a new budget that seeks to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade while at the same time showering billions of dollars of increased spending on areas aimed at giving the economy a quick boost.
Not until the eleventh paragraph do we learn what deficit reduction means to this Democrat: “Obama’s spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 projects a deficit for this year of $1.33 trillion. That would mean four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits.”
This reads more like a White House press release than an article news article. Only in Washington do you call something deficit reduction when you’re cutting your projections of future spending.
In each of those years of projected “deficit reduction”, spending will increase from the year previously. It’s as if Imelda Marcos, aware of the furor her shoe-buying caused, vowed to reduce the number of pairs of shoes she was planning on buying. This year, she’s planning on buying 100 (even though her budget only allows for 75 pair). She had been planning on buying 110 next year and 120 the year after that. Now she’s only planning on buying 106 pairs next year and 112 the year after that.
If she talked as does the Obama administration, she’d still be planning to buy more shoes while calling her anticipated purchases a reduction in shoe-buying.
Also to note, the article reports that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul “Ryan is preparing an alternative to Obama’s budget that will be similar to a measure that the House approved last year but failed in the Senate.” It doesn’t report that the president’s budget failed to win even a single Democratic vote when put before the Senate last year.
ADDENDUM: Wonder if the White House coordinated with the HuffPo on this piece.