2,853-0: The Complete Omission of War from Budget Commentaries
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:48AM On Monday, April 11, The Washington Post ran three articles about the federal budget debate.
Zachary A. Goldfarb wrote the lead front page article, “Obama to offer new approach for reducing deficits.” He describes Obama’s effort to go on the offensive, quoting David Plouffe saying the president will look for cuts “in all corners of government.”
The article runs 1260 words. It never uses the words “military” or “defense” spending.
E. J. Dionne wrote a column, “Shut down the Government,” in which he describes the Tea Party’s “contempt” for government.
The article runs 773 words. It never uses the words “military” or “defense” spending.”
Robert J. Samuelson’ column, “Suicidal politics,” describes how so much of America depends on government entitlements and tax breaks that “any effort to change the status arouses a firestorm of opposition that virtually ensures defeat.”
The article runs 820 words. It never uses the words “military” or “defense” spending.
That’s 2853 to 0.
How can a citizenry and electorate be well informed on the budget deficit debate when respected newspapers and columnists don’t even mention an item that costs over $700 billion a year (up from $300 billion in 2000) and accounts for 50% of all discretionary government spending?
Bob Muehlenkamp
Reader Comments (1)
Your article is nice, I read your article to learn a lot and hope to see your next article panerai replica watches , look forward to your masterpiece, you can also see our information, I hope it can give you You some convenient.panerai replica watches