The national section of today's New York Times carries a news article about President Bush's budget. The article reports, "Mr. Bush's budget proposed an increase in spending for the coming year of 4 percent on the array of general government programs for which Congress must set spending levels each year. That would be an increase sharply lower than in recent years, when that category of spending climbed about 6 percent to 8 percent a year." The effect of that sentence is to make Mr. Bush look like a tightwad. But here's what actually happened to discretionary outlays of the federal government in recent years, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables contained in Mr. Bush's budget. From 1991 to 1992, discretionary spending increased 0.1 percent. From 1992 to 1993, it increased 1 percent. From 1993 to 1994 it increased 0.4 percent. From 1994 to 1995 it increased 0.6 percent. From 1995 to 1996 it decreased 2.2 percent. From 1996 to 1997 it increased 2.7 percent. From 1997 to 1998 it increased 0.8 percent. From 1998 to 1999 it increased 3.6 percent. From 1999 to 2000 it increased 7.5 percent, and from 2000 to 2001 it is estimated to increase 5.6 percent. (Real 1996 dollars are the basis for these comparisons.)
In other words, President Bush's proposed 4 percent increase in discretionary spending is larger than the actual increase in eight out of the last ten years. For the Times to describe this as "sharply lower than in recent years" is to focus on the last two years instead of the last ten years. It warps the policy debate in favor of more spending.
If the Times op-ed columnists or editorialists want to play these kinds of games with numbers, that's one thing. But to pull this kind of stunt in a news article that runs under the headline, "Bush Faces Senate Struggle On Rise in Rate of Spending" is the sort of thing that erodes a newspaper's credibility.