On Groundhog Day this year, newspaper readers may have had a sense
of dj vu reading about budget cuts in a narrowly-passed bill
which scales back increases in government spending. But instead of a
Bill Murray comedy, the media presented a slasher flick. The
Washington Post and The New York Times cast congressional
Republicans as the axe murderers, even though a federal budget
expert found the projected reductions in spending paltry compared to
budgets from the Clinton administration.
While the Posts Jonathan Weisman and the Timess Sheryl Gay
Stolberg did explain that the budget cuts were really reductions
in the growth of social program spending, both reporters cast the
federal budget trimming as full-scale bloodletting, amplifying the
outrage from the legislations detractors.
Weisman rang alarm bells over Medicaid changes which would impose
new costs on 13 million poor recipients and end insurance coverage
for 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, while Stolberg portrayed the final
vote as an agonizing call for moderate Republicans made nervous by
intensive lobbying from advocacy groups.
The motives for lobbyists for the bill were
unquestioned while both papers aired criticism of backers of the
spending plan. This bill is Exhibit A for special interest and
lobbyists at the expense of the ordinary citizen,
Weisman quoted the dean of the House Democrats, Michigans Rep.
John Dingell, in the February 2 paper.
Stolberg
also cited Dingells gripe in her February 2 story, as well as
reaction from two left-leaning groups, the AARP and Americans
United, both of which lobbied hard against the budget bills
adoption. Neither reporter consulted conservative think tanks like
The Heritage Foundation for reaction.
Heritages senior budget analyst, Brian Riedl, told theBusiness & Media Institute that $40 billion in five-year savings are remarkably
modest when compared to budget bills from the late 1990s, which
saved an inflation-adjusted average of $308 billion over five
years. In other words, the cuts which the media are now lamenting
were seven times larger during President Bill Clintons second term.
Riedl was also quoted in a
Los Angeles Times story on the budgets passage.
In June 2005 The
Business & Media Institute
issued a report which documented how the media often categorize
reductions in the growth of government programs as cuts.
Newspapers Saw the U.S. Budgets Slightly Smaller Shadow
February 2nd, 2006 2:00 PM
Font Size