The Post is guilty of some seriously lazy reporting in its lead story on the Democrat's bill for Iraq War funding. The article reports that the bill includes $21 billion in funding that President Bush did not request. It gives several examples of items that seem to fit the definition of pork, but then notes that the bill includes $2.9 billion for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Is this pork? It would be reasonable to ask that an article give some systematic breakdown of this $21 billion. How much likely would be appropriated in any case, but just placed in different bills? What percentage is going to pork and what percent is going for real programs? Will this money be spent in one year or over many years? I know that it would take some time to get this information, but I believe that the Post has full-time reporters. Making sure that the numbers presented in their articles provide information to readers would be a good use of their time.
--Dean Baker
