Two articles, same subject.
Washington Post vs the New York Times.
Dana Milbank vs Christopher Drew
How not to stick to your guns
New York Times
Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby
Isn’t that funny.
Somebody isn’t telling the truth, or is glossing over important points in order to push a perspective.
Lets find out who that is.
Milbank of the Washington Post
– starts with a snarky reference to the nobel peace prize
– Emphasizes that this is the largest military spending plan in history.
That is true.
But the author neglects to mention that each of the past 8 years has also shared that distinction.
– mentions that Obama succeeded in “killing off” the F-22 and a fleet of presidential helicopters.
– Claims that the military lobby forced new engines for the F-35 down Obama’s throat; a clear victory over the white house.
– Talks about a poll that people mistrust the government. (stop watching Fox idiots.)
– says that the budget is larger. Stops there. Doesn’t give any details as to why its larger. Inflation, lol? I hope the author is not that manipulative.
– gives 3 examples that total roughly 5 billion, which is 1% of the military budget, for a little perspective.
– says that there are a mess of earmarks in the bill.
– brings up another negative report
After reading the Washington Post article, I have no feeling of victory, despite the early mention that the president succeeded in cutting a couple of wasteful projects.
Because I’m not an idiot, I’m wondering – how much were those two projects going to cost that Obama succeeded in cutting?
1.75 billion yearly, so nearly 11 billion over 10 years for the F-22
The government spent close to $3.2 billion on the project before Defense Secretary Robert Gates killed it for being behind schedule and over budget.
Gates said the project, which had a $13 billion price tag, no longer met White House requirements.
So after some work, I realize that Obama and Defense Secretary Gates succeeded in cutting roughly $20 billion, at a cost of $5 billion.
Another reason this may be a victory for the white house.
These were entrenched programs – giving up a fraction back in earmarks is acceptable considering they are one-time payments as far as I know.
And if congress is on its game, we won’t start any unnecessary wasteful programs.
So how did the New York Times article do?
Its more well rounded, has more facts and notices that the measure also
“includes a ban on hate crimes that Democratic leaders attached to the bill.”
There are many reasons to like this budget.
Washington Posts credibility takes a shot, and Milbank’s credibility goes negative for me.
UPDATE: a report I read today suggested the savings to total $100 billion.
While washington post quibbles about 1% of that amount to attempt to claim failure.