Daniel Gross is unhappy that the Washington Post employs Michael Abramowitz and Charles Babbington as journalists:
Daniel Gross: July 16, 2006 - July 22, 2006 Archives: GREAT MOMENTS IN CREDULITY: From an article by Michael Abramowitz and Chuck Babington in yesterday's Washington Post.
"By working closely with Congress -- and by threatening vetoes when they were called for -- discretionary spending has been kept in check and there hasn't been a need to veto a spending bill," said Scott Milburn, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
But some fiscal conservatives complained that the absence of presidential vetoes reflects a lack of interest by Bush in challenging Congress to reduce costs in large spending bills that are outside the regular budget process -- such as highway, energy and agriculture bills that were full of expensive projects. As long as Bush was receiving support for his big agenda items such as tax cuts and the Iraq war, he went along with the bills, they said.
He just decided not to spend the political capital in fighting Congress on spending, and Congress basically agreed to go along with his biggest priorities," said Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth. "That's gotten us to the point where spending has gotten out of control."
It's amazing to me that two reporters could print that quote from Milburn, even with the two paragraphs that follow. Why? To say that discretionary spending has been kept in check in the Bush years is, lets see, how should I put this, an appalling lie! Just check out this chart from Cato.
As I have said before, informing its readers about the state of the world is just not something that a young Washington Post reporter these days is taught to care about. And it shows.
But Scott Milburn is happy. Much good may Scott Milburn's happiness with Abramowitz's and Babbington's work do them, because it's the only thing they've got going for them now, isn't it?