If you have "no place to go," come here!

Department of burying the lede

vastleft's picture

Ho-hum, in the middle of an article about the latest record federal deficit comes this aside:

The administration actually underestimates the deficit, however, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

Lawlessness as usual. No story here folks, nothing to see. Just move along.

No votes yet


Ghost of Joe LIeblings Dog's picture
Submitted by Ghost of Joe LI... on

Isn't there a word for "mandates from Congress"? Starts with "L", rhymes with "caws"?

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
... searching for home ...

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

Same story by WaPo, same numbers, but analysis conflicts with MSNBC:

If anything, the White House's new deficit forecasts may be low. This year's deficit does not include the costs of the massive housing bill Congress approved last weekend, nor does it reflect the new law reversing scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors.

Next year's record figure includes only $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which could cost three times that level, and it is based on economic assumptions that could prove unrealistic.

UPDATE: Well, on second reading, I see there's not necessarily a conflict; it's unclear. Sure don't see any signs of shock at the lawlessness though.