Newscasts See Budget Filled with Substantial Cuts
Published: 2/7/2006 2:00 PM ET
Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government bureau is
the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
When President Bushs proposed fiscal year 2007 federal budget hit
newsrooms on the late President Reagans 95th birthday, the media
showed that their biases in covering undying government spending
likewise spring eternal.
Reporters for the February 6 evening newscasts portrayed proposed reductions in government spending in the new budget as substantial, even though budget experts at conservative groups like the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Heritage Foundation would argue otherwise.
ABCs Martha Raddatz warned that the budget calls for doing away with or making substantial cuts in 141 programs of $15 billion. But cuts that size amount to just over one-half of one percent of the entire $2.77 trillion federal budget, and pales in comparison to the close to 300 programs for termination or cuts amounting to $40 billion that Republicans proposed in 1995, Cato director of budget studies Stephen Slivinski remarked in a February 6 news release.
The basic idea is to spend more on defense and homeland security and reduce the growth of spending -- in some cases flat-out cutting it just about everywhere else, CBSs Jim Axelrod reported from the White House lawn before citing a 28 percent reduction in education spending.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both reported that the discretionary budget for education will be cut by only 3.8 percent or one seventh of the number Axelrod reported.
Axelrod and company also ignored the ongoing trend in the Bush presidency to rapidly accelerate the growth of federal spending especially in education, the department the new budget reportedly cuts. The conservative National Taxpayers Union (NTU) on February 6 released an analysis showing that Between 2001 and 2007, the Presidents budget projects a faster rate of increase for education spending (81 percent) than for defense (74 percent). Its not just education funding that is skyrocketing under Bush. The same day, Heritage budget analyst Brian Riedl released a study finding that overall spending on the budget has risen 33 percent since President Bush first took office in 2001, growing twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton.
The Media Research Centers Brent Baker documented evening news coverage in his February 7 CyberAlert. On February 2, the Business & Media Institute similarly documented how the New York Times and Washington Post were spooked by drastic cuts planned for the federal budget.
Reporters for the February 6 evening newscasts portrayed proposed reductions in government spending in the new budget as substantial, even though budget experts at conservative groups like the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Heritage Foundation would argue otherwise.
ABCs Martha Raddatz warned that the budget calls for doing away with or making substantial cuts in 141 programs of $15 billion. But cuts that size amount to just over one-half of one percent of the entire $2.77 trillion federal budget, and pales in comparison to the close to 300 programs for termination or cuts amounting to $40 billion that Republicans proposed in 1995, Cato director of budget studies Stephen Slivinski remarked in a February 6 news release.
The basic idea is to spend more on defense and homeland security and reduce the growth of spending -- in some cases flat-out cutting it just about everywhere else, CBSs Jim Axelrod reported from the White House lawn before citing a 28 percent reduction in education spending.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both reported that the discretionary budget for education will be cut by only 3.8 percent or one seventh of the number Axelrod reported.
Axelrod and company also ignored the ongoing trend in the Bush presidency to rapidly accelerate the growth of federal spending especially in education, the department the new budget reportedly cuts. The conservative National Taxpayers Union (NTU) on February 6 released an analysis showing that Between 2001 and 2007, the Presidents budget projects a faster rate of increase for education spending (81 percent) than for defense (74 percent). Its not just education funding that is skyrocketing under Bush. The same day, Heritage budget analyst Brian Riedl released a study finding that overall spending on the budget has risen 33 percent since President Bush first took office in 2001, growing twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton.
The Media Research Centers Brent Baker documented evening news coverage in his February 7 CyberAlert. On February 2, the Business & Media Institute similarly documented how the New York Times and Washington Post were spooked by drastic cuts planned for the federal budget.
