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.
When Obama wanted to spend about $1 trillion on a failed “stimulus,” did the Washington Post write that he wanted to “bloat” or “explode” the budget? I certainly don’t remember such language.
When Obama wanted to increase the net burden of spending by about $500 billion for his healthcare scheme, did the Washington Post explain that he wanted to “dramatically boost” or “significantly expand” outlays? Maybe I missed the story, but I don’t recollect such language.
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] 2011,the Post asserted that a plan to trim the budget by less than 2/10ths of 1 percent would “slash” […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] There’s a pattern of lazy/dishonest fiscal reporting at the Washington […]
[…] While Balz and Milbank were guilty of avoiding numbers, the Washington Post doesn’t have a great track record when its journalists try to use numbers. In other words, maybe the problem is bias rather than […]
[…] Deceptive reporting about appropriations. […]
[…] Deceptive reporting about appropriations. […]
[…] Here’s a previous example of budget inaccuracy in the Washington […]
[…] the Washington Post is lying (and not for the first time). There will be no Medicaid cuts in Trump’s budget. Contrary to the headline, there aren’t […]
[…] the Washington Post is lying (and not for the first time). There will be no Medicaid cuts in Trump’s budget. Contrary to the headline, there […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] I’ve also commented on a Washington Post story that turned a spending cut molehill into a “spending slash” mountain, a silly assertion in the New York Times that education spending has been reduced, and a Washington […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] I’ve also commented on a Washington Post story that turned a spending cut molehill into a “spending slash” mountain, a silly assertion in the New York Times that education spending has been reduced, and a Washington […]
My spouse and I stumbled over here coming from a different page and thought I should check
things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
Look forward to looking at your web page for
a second time.
[…] to the budget fight, I’ve written about the overwrought rhetoric from politicians and their big-government allies, who want us to believe that tiny spending cuts would ravage the federal budget (we should be so […]
[…] Post seems to specialize in this kind of über-mistake. It was a Post reporter, after all, who wrote last year about a GOP plan to “slash” spending when timid GOPers were merely trying to trim 0.15 percent from the growth of federal spending. Not […]
[…] year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 […]
[…] York Times last week for its reporting about supposed “deep spending cuts” and I also nailed the Washington Post back in 2011 for using the term “slash” for a budget plan that would have shaved a miniscule $6 […]
[…] Mitchell, budget director of the Cato Institute, showed a near perfect example of the problem involving the Washington Post – the hometown newspaper of the federal government. Last year, […]
[…] of turning budget increases into spending cuts, but the Washington Post is guilty of the same sin, having actually written in 2011 that reducing a $3.8 trillion budget by $6 billion would “slash […]
[…] This Washington Post story that turned a spending cut molehill into a “spending slash” mountain […]
[…] This Washington Post story that turned a spending cut molehill into a “spending slash” mountain […]
[…] I’ve also commented on a Washington Post story that turned a spending cut molehill into a “spending slash” mounta…, a silly assertion in the New York Times that education spending has been reduced, and a Washington […]
[…] Post seems to specialize in this kind of über-mistake. It was a Post reporter, after all, who wrote last year about a GOP plan to “slash” spending when timid GOPers were merely trying to trim 0.15 percent from the growth of federal spending. Not […]
[…] it’s why I nailed the Washington Post for using “slash” to describe a tiny reduction in the growth of […]
[…] it’s why I nailed the Washington Post for using “slash” to describe a tiny reduction in the growth of […]
[…] why is there such a disconnect? Why does the establishment media report about “cuts” that would “slash” the budget, when actual spending is […]
[…] also mocked the Post last March, when a reporter hysterically claimed that a proposal to trim $6 billion from a $3,600 billion budget would “slash” […]
[…] $10 billion of cuts, and even though that’s very trivial when compared to total spending (akin to a couple of french fries out of a Big Mac meal), the pro-spending lobbies and their allies on Capitol Hill are balking at the thought of […]
[…] to the budget fight, I’ve written about the overwrought rhetoric from politicians and their big-government allies, who want us to believe that tiny spending cuts would ravage the federal budget (we should be so […]
[…] billion of cuts, and even though that’s very trivial when compared to total spending (akin to a couple of french fries out of a Big Mac meal), the pro-spending lobbies and their allies on Capitol Hill are balking at the thought of […]
[…] $10 billion of cuts, and even though that's very trivial when compared to total spending (akin to a couple of french fries out of a Big Mac meal), the pro-spending lobbies and their allies on Capitol Hill are balking at the thought of […]
[…] billion of cuts, and even though that’s very trivial when compared to total spending (akin to a couple of french fries out of a Big Mac meal), the pro-spending lobbies and their allies on Capitol Hill are balking at the thought of […]
[…] billion of cuts, and even though that’s very trivial when compared to total spending (akin to a couple of french fries out of a Big Mac meal), the pro-spending lobbies and their allies on Capitol Hill are balking at the thought of […]
[…] Is the Best Way to Describe a Plan to Trim $6 Billion out of $3.8 Trillion? Dan Mitchell|International LibertyWashington is Fantasy Land.Only in this corrupt city can you turn increases into cuts merely by […]
[…] CATO Institute analyst Daniel Mitchell calls the Obama budget the equivalent “of going on a diet by leaving a couple of French fries in the bottom of the bag after bingeing on three Big Mac meals at McDonald’s.” He writes: “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.’” Read the full post at CATO. […]
[…] remaining bit of french fry is the budget cut. The Washington Post is deeply concerned when lawmakers “slash billions from the budget,” even when the […]
[…] thought my post about budget cuts earlier today, mocking the biased language of the Washington Post, was clever. But I’m definitely an amateur […]
Even the phrase “paper cut” exaggerates. It’s no more than fingernail trimmings.
[…] thought my post about budget cuts earlier today, mocking the biased language of the Washington Post, was clever. But I’m definitely an amateur […]
I guess they figure “slash” sounds better than “budget gets a paper cut” or “budget cuts itself shaving”.
Putting the numbers all in billions is a great first step. However, I find that most people understand thousands. So explain it this way:
You and your spouse have outstanding credit card debts of $14,000. You have $2,200 of income to spend as you please. But you really like the idea of going on that cruise which costs $3,800. So what do you do? Decide on one less $6 cocktail for one of you on the trip. Problem solved!
Oh, and just forget about that $100,000 balloon payment on your mortgage [unfunded liabilities] that’s coming at some point in the future.
This really is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
In pictures. http://bit.ly/iiUIV0
I just ran Disk Cleanup on my 3.8TB drive, and it now I have a whole 6GB free space! Wow!
Here’s a screenshot:
But, of course, this is exactly why the MSM is dying its slow, highly entertaining, death…
If that $3.8T budget were a 4″ block of cheese, the $6B slash would be a slice about the thickness of a human hair. Just try to cut cheese that thin with a kitchen knife!
Thanks for the post. I missed the story, and it was a good opportunity to add some perspective…
http://lyflines.blogspot.com/2011/03/little-perspective-please.html
Give them a break, Dan. Their template for this kind of a news piece already says ‘slash’. They filled in today’s number, as they are supposed to do, and pressed ‘publish’.
You surely didn’t expect them to actually write new copy, did you, when all their templates are fully baked and have been for 45 years?
I would have expected an economists such as yourself to understand the need for productivity and efficiency gains in business.
To paraphrase Charlie Brown; We’re doomed!
Robert is exactly right; keep everything in billions.
Another analogy: I’m spending way too much on Starbucks in a month. Instead of paying out $100, next month I’ll only spend $99.85. Boy, did I slash my budget!
It would be even better to write out the full sum:
$3,800,000,000,000 –
6,000,000,000 =
$3,794,000,000,000= $3.8Trillion.
Robert makes a great point here. The common man being bombarded billions, trillions (eventually quadrillions?) starts to glaze over and lose the ability to visualize the numbers. Keep the conversation in billions. Even if it’s tens or hundreds of thousands of billions. Sadly, we are probably heading towards scientific notation on some of this. Excellent post by the way.
Robert Arvanitis — very good point. I will remember to use that.
Doesn’t that $6 billion fund the government for 10-12 HOURS? I think that “closing” the government for a few weeks wouldn’t hurt at all. Slash away!
I propose a new rule for small-government advocates. Always work in billions.
It is FAR more intuitive to tell people:
“Washington Post whines about a $6 billion cut, out of a $3,800 billion budget.”
That shows the stark contrast between 6 and 3,800…
Well said, Sir! Well said..