Print headline: "Bush to Propose Vast Cost Savings in Medicare Plan."
From the fourth paragraph of the article:
Administration officials, Congressional aides and lobbyists said the president was contemplating a package of proposals that would cut the projected growth in Medicare spending by $30 billion to $35 billion in the next five years. That represents less than 1.5 percent of total Medicare spending in those years.
Questions: Do Times editors read the articles before writing headlines? And can we enroll them in Brad DeLong's economics journalism class? Luckily, someone must have noticed the contradiction because the online headline now reads "Bush to Propose Curbing Growth in Medicare Cost."
less than 1.5% of total spending, and less than one twentieth of what we expect to spend on the drug progam alone - that debt-financed beast that the President & his congressional allies put on the national tab just a year or two ago. the new fiscal conservatism: run up a huge debt, two years later come up with offsets worth a nickel on the dollar, and pat yourself on the back for your courageous fiscal responsibility. then reward yourself by passing more tax cuts.
the other hilarious dimension to this, of course, is the bit about "contemplating a package of proposals." hasn't he submitted his budget? shouldn't his budget reflect the proposals he's actually making, at least the big headline-grabbing ones? at what point is he expected to actually say, this is what i want to do to Medicare? as long as he doesn't have to specify, why not call for $50 billion? why not $100 billion?
Posted by: TW | February 07, 2006 at 02:11 PM