Did You See Newsweek's Headline About Biden's Fall at the Air Force Academy?
What Happened at the Air Force Academy Commencement Raises More Concerns About Biden's...
Feinstein's Office Initiates Biden-Like Protocol Regarding Interacting With the Media
Hunter Biden’s Defense of His Gun Crime Is Really Something
The McCarthy-Biden Debt Ceiling Deal Sends America Into Economic Demise
We Might Have Found the One 2024 GOP Candidate Who Would Not Make...
Conservatives Have Found Their Power
Shocker: Blue Jays Say Player Apologizing for Posting Pro-Bud Light Boycott Is Not...
Liberal DC-Area Activist Wants This for His Attacker Instead of Going to Jail
Looking Upwards, Rather Than Left or Right, for That Which Unites Us
Senate Hearing Sounds the Alarm on America’s Childcare Crisis
Disney Continues to Groom Children In the Creepiest Way Possible
Woke Women's Magazine Features ‘Trans Pregnant Man’ for ‘Pride Month’ Cover
Is This the Weirdest Primary Campaign Issue Yet?
Why Isn't Biden Campaigning?

The Media's Budget Fantasy Land

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Jaws dropped across the nation's capital at the audacious annihilation of the truth on the front page of the Feb. 15 Washington Post. The top headline read, "Obama budget makes deep cuts, cautious trades." It's another day at the Post, where every day is an April Fool's joke.

Reporter Lori Montgomery didn't exactly say "deep cuts" in her first sentence. She explained that Obama's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2012 made "surgical cuts and cautious trade-offs." But two paragraphs later, the reporter admitted, "(T)he president's offer to freeze funding for domestic programs would produce minimal savings in the short term." That doesn't match the "deep cuts" headline in large, bold type -- because there are none.

Post readers could look at the Fiscal 2012 budget outline right under the headline. Projected spending: $3.7 trillion. Expected tax revenue is $2.6 trillion. The expected deficit is $1.1 billion, "down" from the estimated Fiscal 2011 deficit of $1.6 trillion.

What about the "deep cuts" for 2012? Obama's policies actually add $11 billion to the deficit. Any deficit reduction would only come from economic growth and the end of "stimulus" projects.

All this is dizzying when near the end of the Reagan presidency, the entire budget in Fiscal Year 1988 was $1.06 trillion, less than the red ink from Obama's pen.

But the headlines were selling Obama as a "deep cutter." The Post's free tabloid, Express, carried this weird, blaring headline: "Burned by the Budget: Obama's $3.7T fiscal blueprint would spread the pain to just about every American." The Boston Globe identified "Deep cuts, chance of gains for state in Obama budget." The Fort Worth Star-Telegram was also favorable: "Obama Plan Aims to Rein In Deficits."

On National Public Radio, reporter Mara Liasson relayed that Obama said his budget freezes "would bring domestic spending down to a 50-year low as a share of GDP." She then quoted Obama saying "this share of spending" is going to be "lower than it was under the last three administrations. And it will be lower than it was under Ronald Reagan."

Let that sink in: Obama, more fiscally conservative than Ronald Reagan.

Liasson then added: "Mr. Obama said his budget did that by cutting that hearty perennial, waste, fraud and abuse, but also by making deep, painful cuts in important programs."

Once again, this is absolutely false. There are not "deep, painful cuts" in Obama's domestic spending. Media outlets like NPR are letting the White House isolate one small fraction of the budget -- "discretionary domestic non-defense spending" -- and then letting them claim that it's going down, but only as a percentage of the (growing) gross domestic product.

Surely, NPR knows that in his first two years, Obama exploded domestic spending with his failed "stimulus" plan. The idea that they can now let him paint himself as Mr. Deep Cuts shows how they lack elementary mathematics or political-science skills. The alternative is they know what they're doing, making them projectors of dishonest journalism.

Every American who voted last fall for fiscal sanity should now take his placards and pitchforks to the offices of the national newspapers and the studios of the national TV and radio networks. The American people should demand that every news story on the federal spending debate deal with the entire $3.7 trillion budget, not just isolated fractions.

When you change your outlook from Fiscal 2012 to the next decade, it's even more shocking. ABC reporter Jake Tapper was atypically blunt: "President Obama later today will propose a 10-year budget plan that would increase the national debt by $7.2 trillion over 10 years -- $1.1 trillion less than if it weren't implemented."

In other words, the best this president can do is oversee bankruptcy.

One major reason we're in this fiscal morass is our national media. Forget any real cuts. For decades now, any attempt to even try to trim (SET ITAL) increases in growth (END ITAL) in entitlements like Medicare have been trashed by the media as "draconian cuts."

Our top reporters have spent the last two years letting Barack Obama spew the insanity that he could add millions of uninsured people to the government's health-insurance programs and simultaneously cut the deficit. Now they're calling him responsible for "deep cuts." They truly live in a parallel universe.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video