In the February 4 USA Today, Richard Wolf treated news of Bush's last budget proposal by alternating between liberal Democrats attacking the president and Wolf's own stark language in characterizing the spending blueprint. What's more, Wolf cited two Democrats attacking the spending plan, compared to one Republican depending reductions in spending in the final Bush budget.
An excerpt follows (emphasis mine):
The $3.1 trillion budget would sharply reduce the growth of Medicare and trim other domestic programs, while providing sizable increases for defense, diplomacy and homeland security.
Perhaps its most lasting legacy, however, would be the re-emergence of deficits above $400 billion, nearly matching the $412 billion record set in 2004. The deficit would rise from $162 billion in 2007 to $410 billion this year and $407 billion next year.
Those deficits, fueled by the roughly $150 billion economic stimulus plan pending in the Senate, would send the federal debt soaring past $10 trillion next year.
"This is the legacy our children and grandchildren will inherit from the fiscal policy of this administration," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee.
The budget calls for the continuation of Bush's tax cuts, passed largely in 2001 and 2003. It does not, however, include relief beyond this year for about 20 million taxpayers threatened by the alternative minimum tax, which is not indexed for inflation. Such relief would push the deficit even higher.
Also likely to boost red ink further: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's budget includes $70 billion for the 2009 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That's just enough to get through his administration, which ends Jan. 20, 2009.
"Once again, the president has tried to conceal the true fiscal impact of his budget by leaving out large costs," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
The sole defender of the plan quoted in the article didn't appear until paragraph 11 of 12:
Republicans defended the spending cuts. "Any budget, to be effective, needs to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending, which is the single biggest factor contributing to the long-term fiscal crisis we face," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
Update (14:54): The article linked above apparently has been updated. It now runs 18 paragraphs long and also includes President Bush and White House budget director Jim Nussle in defense of the budget, as well as Nancy Pelosi attacking it. That evens things out.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wolf messed up big time.
February 4, 2008 - 13:08 ET by WildBillUsually, they don't have even the one defender of whatever the daily Bush bash topic. Most other times they'll toss in a RINO or two to help the beating move more smoothly.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
Here again we see the false
February 4, 2008 - 14:33 ET by dscottHere again we see the false equivalence played out, the military budget isn't driven by formulas mandating a continual rise in expenses as are the entitlements. So now a reduction in the rate of INCREASE is a cut for entitlements, whereas realistically including the expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan in the military instead of a separate supplemental is an increase.
I see we are back to the whining and carping by liberals. Thanks USA Today for misinforming the public once again to confirm your status as a propaganda outlet not a news outlet.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I know a great number of people who live in poverty
February 4, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Lame CherryI know a great number of people who live in poverty, family included, and I grew up that way.
They have no insurance, pay as they go, live in many cases on about 300 dollars a month and get by without taxing the system as none of them get welfare as it would be considered shiftless to take it.
These people will NOT GET THE REBATE, they work though like numbers do from West Virginia, the outlands of Wisconsin and Michigan to nooks of the west. They could use that 300 dollars and will not get it.
In noting that on budgets, if these people subsist in warm homes, clothing and food all on their own budget........just like numbers of border busters do..........then why doesn't the government just stop spending money it doesn't have and see what happens.
Yes the media will have starving children manufactured, but in a short time they would find out that all this money being spent is unnecessary.
I know for a fact that hospitals would still treat patients, but instead of heaping up 10 grand on a patient like my Mother last year had an appendix out and they sent a sample in for cancer check.........how ridiculous is that!
These bills are all being paid by tax payers and the system is being scammed.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS