Are There Any Adults at the New York Times?

by

The New York Times editorial board hyperventilates:

Are there any adults in charge of the House? Watching this week’s frenzied slash-and-burn budget contest, we had to conclude the answer to that is no.
 
First Speaker John Boehner’s Republican leadership proposed cutting the rest of the 2011 budget by $32 billion. But that wasn’t enough for his fanatical freshmen, who demanded that it be cut by $61 billion, destroying vital government programs with gleeful abandon.

Wow, I’m sold that the Republicans really are engaged in a “frenzied slash-and-burn budget contest“. Why, $32 billion is a whopping 0.8% of our current $3.834 TRILLION (with a capital “T”) budget! My God! The very foundations of the Republic must tremble at the thought of staggering along on only 99.2% of previous revenues!

There is only one phrase that accurately describes the draconian nature of these cuts: “a rounding error”.

Suppose you had to pay for something way more fancy than what you wanted. You got a bill from someone saying you owed them $3,834 dollars. You contest the bill and they say, “Hey, I feel for you. Let me really slash that down for you. Here, I’ll knock off $32 bucks!” Would you feel like they’d really done you a big favor?

The very fact that the NYT editorialists take extreme care throughout their editorial not to put the multi-billion dollar cuts into the context of a multi-TRILLION dollar budget tells you all you need to know about their honesty, integrity and impartiality.

6 thoughts on “Are There Any Adults at the New York Times?”

  2. Shannon – you are obviously wholly ignorant of Washington economics – especially as practiced by the liberals. Yes, the budget was $3.8 trillion. Then Obama presented his plan to increase it to $4.7 trillion. The “fanatical freshmen” want to take it down to $3.7 trillion. Spending $3.7 trillion versus $4.7 trillion requested results in a 21% reduction in spending. You see in Washington, failure to increase spending is a reduction in spending … and failure to agree to a huge increase in spending is a huge reduction in spending – something so draconian only a fanatic would consider it.

    Your problem is that you are letting math, logic and common sense cloud your thinking. Once you can learn to set these aside I am sure you will pick up Washington economics in no time.

  3. Bill Waddell,

    Your problem is that you are letting math, logic and common sense cloud your thinking. Once you can learn to set these aside I am sure you will pick up Washington economics in no time.

    Don’t think I want to then. I have to program computers, handle power tools and firearms. The combination of Washington thinking and power tools etc would problem not go well.

  5. “First Speaker John Boehner’s Republican leadership proposed cutting the rest of the 2011 budget by $32 billion. But that wasn’t enough for his fanatical freshmen, who demanded that it be cut by $61 billion, destroying vital government programs with gleeful abandon.”

    *sigh* You’re right it’s a rounding error. Any change Boehner will make real cuts? I for one would love to see vital government organs bleeding and dying. The more vital (in the Times’ judgment) the better.

Comments are closed.