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.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
