Instead of relying on the "bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget," the Post could have examined the data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (Table 1-3), which shows that non-defense discretionary spending rose by 6.0 percent annually from 1998-2008. That is slightly less rapid than the rate of growth of entitlement spending over this period and considerably less rapid than the rate of growth of defense spending, which is never mentioned in this piece. Non-defense discretionary spending has risen rapidly in the last two years, although this has been primarily the result of stimulus policies intended to counteract the recession.Remarkably, the piece never once mentions the recession in its discussion of the deficit, even though it is the major reason it has grown to "mammoth" proportions. However, the article did give a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner the opportunity to mock the proposal for a spending freeze: "given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest." The piece found no room for any political figure or economist to provide an alternative perspective on the deficit.
“Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason” --John Wesley
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Another Front Page Washington Post Editorial on the Deficit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment