I was surprised and chagrined that your editorial "A cut below" (April 16) found its basis in an Associated Press analysis of the $38.5 billion budget deal that avoided the government shutdown. I had read the AP analysis to which you referred, which bad-mouthed the whole deal.
From the lilt of its general reporting, the AP presents itself as a part of the much-complained-about "liberal media," though its methods are much more subtle than, say, Time magazine. It is an organization of reporters that collects and feeds news to its newspaper subscribers, but it also has a staff of editorialists posing as "analysts" to produce articles commenting on the news.
The mode of operation is to set a premise and then use the AP resources to gather facts in support of the premise. In this case, the premise for the analysis was: "Show that House Speaker John Boehner's budget deal was no big deal."
A fact it treated as a negative in support of that premise was that the surplus from the funds authorized for the 2010 Census was taken off the table. Considering the ways of Washington, that surplus if left there would have been finagled, rationalized and gobbled up by our liberal Congress, czars and/or bureaucrats to be used for some senseless, useless and unauthorized project. So taking that off the table was not a negative but a positive, and a taxpayer benefit that I want to see more of.
While I agree with you that $14.7 billion, or even $38.5 billion, in cuts is not enough, you should be wary of the sources that you use for your editorials. You may have an AP mole in your editorial room.