Taking up a question from
one of yesterday's posts:
P.S. Watching Democrats apparently give ground yard by yard -- from accepting a reported $32-33 billion in cuts earlier this week to $37-38 billion today, not to say even getting in this range in the first place -- is so baffling that I wonder, by defensive reflex if nothing else, if there isn't more to this than meets the eye. Are some of those billions illusory, i.e. offloaded into areas Democrats don't care about or want to cut? Has the weighting changed in some way that offsets the sticker amount?
And how, given the final sticker amount, can Obama find the "audacity" to claim
this?
But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs -- investments in our kids’ education and student loans; in clean energy and life-saving medical research. We protected the investments we need to win the future.
Here is a Dem answer -- or spin:
“1) $17 BILLION IN ‘CHIMPS’ -- WE SPREAD OUT THE CUTS ACROSS OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET. We insisted that meeting in the middle on cuts would require looking beyond domestic discretionary spending—and we prevailed. More than half—or $17 billion—of the final round of spending cuts came from changes in mandatory programs, or CHIMPs. The emphasis on this part of the budget staved off severe cuts to key domestic programs like education, clean energy, and medical research.
"The CHIMPS," cried Mr. Rochester. "Deuce take me if I did not forget the CHIMPS!"* Or make that
Mr. Rogers (David), who explained back on April 3:
