Does the Washington Post Really Think “Slash” Is the Best Way to Describe a Plan to Trim $6 Billion out of $3.8 Trillion?
Dan Mitchell|International Liberty
Washington is Fantasy Land.
Only in this corrupt city can you turn increases into cuts merely by increasing spending by less than previously planned. And almost every politician magically knows how to transform “spending” into “investment.”
So I’m used to Orwellian word games. But sometimes even I’m shocked, and this excerpt from a Washington Post story is a good (or perhaps bad) example.
The Senate approved another stopgap budget bill Thursday that would keep the federal government open until April 8. The measure, which had already passed the House, is expected to be signed by President Obama on Friday. The bill would cut $6 billion in federal spending. That makes twice this month that lawmakers from both parties have agreed to slash billions from the budget.
Let me see if I understand correctly. Federal spending has soared by more than $2,000,000,000,000 during the Bush-Obama years, pushing the burden of government up to $3,800,000,000,000, yet the reporters who put together this story said that an agreement to trim a trivially tiny slice of 2011 spending would “slash the budget.”
As Charlie Brown would say, good grief. This is the budgetary equivalent of going on a diet by leaving a couple of french fries in the bottom of the bag after binging on three Big Mac meals at McDonald’s.
You probably won’t be surprised to know that sauce for the budget-cutting goose is not sauce for the government-expanding gander.