The deficit debate is heating up. When you read a newspaper you hope for real analysis not blatant propaganda. Consequently I was stunned by the Washington Post's headline: "Obama forges ahead in debt negotiations". How can the Post possibly assert that Obama is working on debt reduction when his proposed budget actually called for record deficit spending?
The follow-up misleading Post headline: "Obama will still seek a $4 trillion debt deal despite GOP opposition, aides say". Another misleading headline. First, the Post seeks to make it appear Obama is proposing spending reductions when he was actually proposing increased spending. Second, the GOP is not specifically against cost cutting, they were against the proposed budget increases.
The Post goes on to write: "Two of President Obama’s top advisers said he will continue to press for a far-reaching, $4 trillion deal to cut the deficit when he meets with congressional leaders on Sunday evening, despite new opposition from Republican leaders to such a compromise.". Now I don't have much love for the Republican budget proposals, but to say that Obama has a far reaching deal to cut the deficit is blatantly misleading.
According to this website the deficit for FY2011 is projected to be $1645.12 billion. In FY2008 the budget deficit totaled $458.55 billion. So in three short years the deficit nearly quadrupled and the Post fails to recognize this? Unbelievable.
The Post headline should read: "Obama Retracts His Proposal for Record Deficit Spending". The Post paragraph above should read along the lines: "Two of Presidents Obama's top advisers conceded to reduce the scope of proposed deficit spending in response to Republican demands for realistic spending levels."
The Post's bogus assertion that Obama is some type of deficit cutting hero who is being obstructed by Republicans is unbelievably blatant partisan journalism.