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."

Unfairness Part Deux

Two additions to the "Outrageous Media Bias" file today:

1) Regarding Obama's sightseeing trip to the Middle East -- his first -- NBC News substitute anchor Lester Holt referred to the trip as Obama's "tour of duty." That pretty much makes his trip the equivalent of McCain's years as a POW in Vietnam, right?

2) The New York Times rejected an Op-Ed piece from John McCain a week after publishing one by Barack Obama. The Times public response said that McCain (in his article) would have to go into detail about his plans for Iraq before they would accept it. Apparently McCain's real sin was when he pointed out that Obama declared in early 2007 that the troop surge in Iraq would not work -- which turned out to be completely wrong. (McCain supported the surge, which he pointed out in his article.)

Once again, the biggest sin to Liberals is when you criticize Obama by telling the truth. (Detour: A very nice column about what makes Obama angry in this article by Guy Benson.)