I saved a bundle buying this fur coat-- it was on sale!

The Daily Howler gives us an example of another bone-headed decision by the editorial staff of the "paper of record," a description that increasingly demands sarcastic quotation marks. The patented Matt Sandwich Funny-Yet-Sad-O-Meter registers it as an 8.5.

For Republicans, “working the refs” really worked! The thought came to mind on Saturday morning, when we spied this headline sitting atop the New York Times’ front page:

BUSH TO PROPOSE VAST COST SAVINGS IN MEDICARE PLAN

The key word in that page-one headline is “savings.” (Inside the paper, on page A8, the “jump” headline used the same term: “Bush to Propose Vast Cost Savings From Medicare in His 2007 Budget.”) In this headline, as in Robert Pear’s opening paragraphs, Bush proposes something which sounds good—“savings.” And he isn’t proposing something unpleasant; he isn’t proposing “vast cuts.” (We’re transcribing the headlines in our hard-copy Times, not the one which appears on-line.)

Why did the Times say “savings,” not “cuts?” We can’t read minds, but this usage tracks to an RNC effort during the Medicare debate of the mid-1990s. At that time, the RNC badgered reporters about their use of the traditional but unpleasant term “cuts.” “Medicare cuts” sounds like something unpleasant—but “Medicare savings” sounds like something you’d want. For that reason, Republicans insisted that the press corps should stop saying “cuts.” In that headline, we see their achievement.

Ahhh, the New York Times. Not so far to the left that they'll avoid Orwellian doublespeak. And there's more. Reliable right-wing shill George Will insists on callings the cuts 'savings,' only to get a richly-deserved beatdown from George Stephanopoulos.