The New York Times reported today (3/30/09) that New York State government had reached an agreement on a $131.8 billion budget. The third paragraph of the front-page story by Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim reads:
And despite the enormous fiscal pressure the state faces, the budget contains $170 million in financing for pet projects—an amount unchanged from last year—suggesting that Albany’s appetite for what critics call pork-barrel spending appeared to be undiminished. Listed in the budget were grants to gun clubs, an upstate museum dedicated to bricks and brick-making, the Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta and an organization known as the Urban Yoga Foundation.
Note that $170 million is 0.13 percent of $131.8 billion—roughly 1/1000th of New York’s total budget. So maybe “Albany’s appetite for what critics call pork-barrel spending” isn’t so large after all, even if it is “undiminished.” Why, then, is this trivial aspect of the budget in the third paragraph, while the reader doesn’t learn about healthcare cuts until the 11th paragraph, and doesn’t find out they amount to $2.3 billion until the 20th paragraph?
Sure, yoga is funny, brick-making museums are funny, and when you combine “Soccer Hall of Fame” and “Oneonta” you’ve got comedy gold. But the emphasis should be on the aspects of the budget that have widespread impact on readers’ lives, rather than on a minuscule fraction of the budget that the Times finds easy to mock.
Well, $170 million could help a whole lot of people, couldn’t it?
Of course, that’s not why the goddamn NYT cares about it. And there’s billions in the budget that go for “economic development” that do nothing other than develop a bulge in wealthy companies’ wallets.
Somehow that escapes these public watchdogs’ attention, doesn’t it?
And of course you’re right that the draconian and deadly cuts to programs that actually have a public benefit are low on the Times’ priority list.
Except when they’re advocating for them in the name of “fiscal responsibility”.