October 31, 2007
When an budget increase is a decrease
It's fascinating how the Democrats use language to conceal rather than reveal things like -- erm, what do we call it? -- facts.
National Review's Yuval Levin peels back the scab on an answer from Hillary Clinton during last night's debate to see what lies beneath:
In response to a question about Lance Armstrong and cancer research last night, Hillary Clinton said “It's just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding.”
The NIH budget in 2001: $20.4 billion
The NIH budget in 2007: $28.6 billionAn eight billion dollar increase. Maybe it all depends on the meaning of the word "basically".
It must be a family thing. As the would-be future First Husband once said, "It depends on what the definition of 'Is' is."
This is what the GOP gets for increasing government spending: they're still cold-hearted capitalists because they didn't agree to shovel even greater quantities of your cash into the insatiable maw of whatever program is deemed more in need of your greenbacks then you are.
Posted by Mike Lief at October 31, 2007 12:13 PM
| TrackBack