But with Republican deficit hawks taking control of the House next month, Education Secretary Arne Duncan will no longer have billions of dollars to use at his discretion (my emphasis).That's Sam Dillon, getting massively spun in the New York Times.
There's simply no justification for a neutral-voiced article calling the incoming Republican majority "deficit hawks." Republicans do claim to be for a balanced budget. So do Democrats (and dissenters are, as far as I can see, more or less equally distributed between the parties). Republicans did not run on a budget-balancing, or even deficit-reducing, program. To the contrary; the two major and significant budget-related planks of their platform, tax cuts and repealing ACA, would both enlarge the deficit significantly. (And do note that Republican campaign rhetoric targeted Medicare cuts -- or, as Dems would put it, savings -- not new government costs in the ACA).
The Times should also perhaps be reminded that there was a recent deficit-reduction commission. It failed to produce a recommendation, in no small part because the three House Republicans on the commission voted against the final product. Nor did they produce an alternative proposal that closed the deficit in a different way, at least not according to neutral scorers.
The Times would not allow its reporters to call one side of an international conflict the peace-loving side just because one nation proclaimed its devotion to peace the loudest, regardless of its actions. It should have the same standard for domestic politics. It is certainly possible that the incoming Republican majority will turn out to be deficit hawks, but for right now all we know is that most Republicans want to spend less on many government programs, and that's all that the Times should say.