A news article about the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal reports, "surveys show a growing frustration with the annual deep cuts to higher education and health care." The article refers again to "routine deep budget cuts — made even deeper after routine midyear revenue shortfalls."
Maybe the Times could just tell us what the cuts were in percentage terms, or in absolute dollar terms, without characterizing them as "deep" or "even deeper"? That would allow readers to judge for themselves how deep the cuts are. But the Times prefers, it seems, to make that judgment on its own rather than allowing readers to think for themselves.
Smartertimes has a higher opinion of its readers, so here are the numbers. Governor Jindal took office in January 2008. In fiscal year 2006-2007 the actual state education spending was $6,758,000,000. In fiscal 2010-2011 the actual education spending was $7,017,800,000. The appropriated education spending for 2012-2013 was $7,384,900,000. These are not, in my view, "deep cuts."
The state budget numbers for human resources, which include health care, are a similar story. The actual figure for 2006-2007 was $7,281,000,000. The actual figure for 2010-2011 was $9,091,700,000, and the appropriated figure for 2012-2013 is $9,764,400,000. Again, not exactly "deep cuts."
This framing by the Times skews the policy debate over government spending. How is a governor supposed to exercise control over state spending when increases in spending are inaccurately described in the press as "deep cuts"?