The lead editorial in today's New York Times says, "The Bush budget is a road map toward a different kind of American society, in which the government no longer taxes the rich to aid the poor, and in fact does very little but protect the nation from foreign enemies." Meanwhile, in the national section of today's Times is a graphic labeled "where it is spent." The graphic shows that of the $2.13 trillion in spending proposed by President Bush, 17% is on the military, 19% is nonmilitary discretionary spending, 54% is "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements" and 9% is interest on the debt. It's as if the Times editorialists feel totally unconstrained by the facts reported in their own newspaper. Only a Times editorialist could consider 73% of $2.13 trillion to be "very little."
Probably: A "political memo" in the national section of today's New York Times reports on an aspect of the congressional budget process. "Its main benefit -- or drawback, depending on the point of view -- has been that under Congressional rules, it made one budget bill a year immune from filibuster in the Senate. Without such a system, President Bush's large tax cut last year probably could not have been enacted," the Times reports. Note the artful use of the word "probably." In fact, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster. Bush's tax cut passed the Senate as an outline in April on a 65-35 vote and in detail in May on a 62-38 vote. So Mr. Bush's tax cut "probably" could have been enacted even in the absence of any immunity from filibusters.