In response to:

Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us these “Deep Spending Cuts” You Keep Writing About

RJBJr Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 8:42 AM
Good point. Mitchell has made a good start, but he does need to include the discretionary part of the budget. I think most of the increases in future years I are due to social security (more retirees) and medical expenses. These are areas Oblamer refuses to discuss. So, the sequester problem is totally due to an incompetent administration.

Sigh. I feel like a modern-day Sisyphus. Except I’m not pushing a rock up a hill, only to then watch it roll back down.

I have a far more frustrating job. I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

The latest example comes from the New York Times, which just reported about “deep automatic spending cuts that will...

Related Tags: New York NeW