WaTimes WTF?

EXCLUSIVE: Obama wins more cuts in spending than Bush

What am I missing here?

That's a featured story in today's Times. No, not the New York Times.  The Washington Times. I read it, and still don't know what to make of the editor's decision to promote it. “ President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs. Among the president's victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end. ” The key cut was the military's F-22 Raptor program.  Well, stop the presses!  Democrat cuts military spending.  The LORAN-C was made obsolete by GPS, so that was pretty much a no-brainer.  Unless, like me, you think the first casualty of the next big war will be our satellite system.  If that happens, then the drone aircraft that supposedly made the F-22 expendable, and our ability to navigate at sea, will be kaputsky.  Reminds me of DOD brainiacs leaving guns off the  F-4 Phantom - because missiles made them obsolete.  But, too much barking over small bones. Does anyone have a firm figure on how many trillions of dollars Obama has already spent?  Even before adding the trillions of dollars that  he wants to spend on Obamacare?   Well, enough to calculate that it's more than  every previous U.S. President combined!  His proposed, utterly useless, Climate Change bill alone will cost more than the reported spending cuts combined (8 billion v. 6.9 billion). So what am I missing?