The Washington Post gives us another budget article chock full of big numbers that will be almost meaningless to anyone who reads it. (Next time i will list the names of the 47 budget wonks who can make sense of this sort of article). This is not reporting. Reporting is supposed to convey information. Writing big numbers without any context is more like a fraternity ritual --you do it because everyone else does it. If the Post finds it impossible to print articles that provide readers with any context for these numbers, perhaps they can be persuaded to refrain from writing articles on the budget in the interest the environment. (Why kill trees for this stuff?) Also, as PGL at Angry Bear pointed out yesterday, when talking about a balanced budget, reporters should distinguish between the unified budget and the on-budget budget. If the government is borrowing money from Social Security, it is still borrowing. The on-budget budget counts the money borrowed from Social Security as part of the deficit.
--Dean Baker
