Not-so-painful cuts

Daniel J. Mitchel wrote a column ("Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us These "Deep Spending Cuts" You Keep Writing About") that points out the absurdity of calling the budget adjustments resulting from sequestration "cuts."

I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

For those more visually oriented, here's Mitchell's chart illustrating the budget "cuts."