That is what readers of its analysis of the budget deal would conclude. It told readers:
"Once in the battle, Obama and his party felt pressure to show they heard the message that many Americans believe the government spends too much and that deficits are unsustainable. As a result, the president and congressional Democrats were forced to agree to much larger spending cuts than they had wanted, rather than appear resistant to popular will."
Actually, almost all of the polling data on the election showed that jobs were by far the most important issue as people went to vote. The deficit trailed by a large margin.
According to analysis from Moody's Analytics and Goldman Sachs, the original package of $61 billion in cuts put forward by the Republicans would lead to a loss of over 700,000 jobs. (The logic is simple. There is less spending, therefore fewer people are employed. Even a Washington Post reporter should be able to get that one.) Since the final package includes roughly two-thirds of these cuts, it is reasonable to infer that it will lead to a loss of close to 500,000 jobs.
Remarkably the Post's analysis says nothing, nada, zero about the jobs impact of this bill. When it comes to ignoring the message expressed in the election last fall it would be difficult to think of a better example.
(Only one link allowed per comment)