The Post can't seem to run a simple budget piece without editorializing at every opportunity. Today it referred to the high income people who would be subject to higher tax rates under a new budget deal as "successful." This assertion is only true if the criterion of success is being rich, in which case it would be more appropriate to simply refer to them as "rich." Being successful and being rich may be synonymous to the Post's editors, but that is not necessarily the view of the general population.
It also refers to the goal of reducing the projected deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade which it tells readers is:
"a target that economists say would stabilize the soaring federal debt."
It should have been possible to write the sentence without the word "soaring." (It would save space.) It's also worth noting that more serious economists (the type who are able to notice $8 trillion housing bubbles) point out that a deal reached on taxes and spending over the next decade will not bind Congresses and presidents elected in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022.
Therefore this is mostly a big fight over writing words on paper in a context where we have little idea of the future. This is similar to the heated debates in the 2000 elections over the year when we would pay off the federal debt. Meanwhile, both Congress and the president are ignoring the wreckage from an economy in which close to 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed or out of the workforce altogether.
(Only one link allowed per comment)