Skip to comments.For Gannett, Slowing Rate of Welfare Growth = "Budget Cut"
Posted on 11/24/2005 5:01:52 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
November 24, 2005 - 07:29.
Remember the good old MSM trope from the days when Newt was Speaker? The notion that slowing the runaway growth of any government program was actually a cut?
Well, just in time for Thanksgiving, it's b-a-a-ack.
My local paper, the Ithaca Journal, leads with this tear-jerker of a banner headline: "Budget Cuts Would Hit State's Poor Hard". Here's a link:
Reporter John Machacek talks of thousands of welfare recipients being "squeezed," of the poor being dealt a "blow" and the proposals "poking sizeable holes in New York's safety net."
And of course the story is complete with heart-tugging personal stories: a cancer survivor living in a YMCA; a single mother with an asthmatic child, both worried about how the 'cuts' might affect them.
But buried nine paragraphs deep in the story, we find that the "cuts" . . . really aren't cuts at all: "the bill mostly pares back the growth in spending for federal anti-poverty programs."
Translation: rather than being cut, welfare spending will actually increase. It simply won't do so at the rate some of the biggest spenders would like.
Even so, the reporter insists that even these modest reductions in the growth of the welfare state "could be troublesome."
Machacek later informs us that "Democrats, advocates for the poor and even some New York Republicans" claim the "budget cuts" could "hurt a significant number of needy people."
You know 'cuts' must be mean-spirited when "even some Republicans" oppose them!
For the MSM, nothing must impede the growth of the welfare state.
Mean-spirited Republican ping to the Today Show ping list.
Happy Thanksgiving glgb!
Thanks for your tireless reporting from the belly of the beast.
Thanks, Rob, and same to you.
I flipped channels among Today, GMA and the Early Show, looking for something outrageous to report on, but they were all on their best behavior with nice Thanksgiving stories.
I needed my liberal media bias fix, and fortunately my liberal local paper came through for me with that goo-goo banner headline story!
It USED to be that the most important details were in the lead of a news article. Agenda-driven "reporters" mask such details nowadays....must be the "new" journalism being taught by lib professors. And they wonder why newspapers are suffering, cutting staff, and going out of business. HA
Leftists lie. 'Twas ever thus.
Talk about burying the lead, no?
Written from another perspective, the headline could have read "Welfare Spending to Increase, Some Still not Satisfied"
The Need Is Great - just look at how much we are spending!
The Feds were crabbing at California a few years ago because Food Stamp caseloads were falling. Social Services and the Legislature responded by giving everyone that goes off cash grant for any reason an extra five months of Food Stamps in the amount last received, no matter what.
You lost your kids because of abuse or neglect? No problem-o! You get FS for that same family size.
Your only baby died under suspicious circumstances in house where you were running a meth lab? FS for the same family size. The need is great.
Happy Thanksgiving governs...
I have never seen the slowing of growth of a government entitlement program stated as anything but a severe cut by the press, along with tearjerker stories of the poor who will likely have their lives destroyed due to a conservative policy (even though as conservatives we never see the "cuts" as nearly strong enough). I believe this may be the longest standing example of unwarranted outrage and bias in the MSM.
I think my head would spin if I ever saw a headline calling it slowing growth instead of deep cuts.
Now as I understand libs have been criticizing the Bush admin for increasing the deficit and failing to find more sources of energy which could help up relieve our dependence on mideast oil. Is that not correct? (he said rhetorically). So the Bush admin wants to drill for more oil in Alaska where there is a proven supply of millions of barrels of oil and has proposed a bill in congress that would cut the rate of spending. So naturally the Dems support both of these measures, right? Well no, they OPPOSE!!!! both proposals. Again I ask why should sane people vote for Dems?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.