tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post4114866234401245175..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-44654699779301646922008-09-05T06:51:00.000-05:002008-09-05T06:51:00.000-05:00No, When you increase the appropriation in the prior year three-fold to finance a one-time facility expansion and then roll that dollar amount back less than the amount of the facility expansion, the organization did not experience a reduction in funding; it actually experienced an increase in funding. That's exactly the sort of games the Democrats have played in Washington for years in portraying so-called "cuts" to attack their enemies.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-45118485460517981062008-09-05T06:44:00.000-05:002008-09-05T06:44:00.000-05:00AI:<BR/><BR/>She put her initials next to this line item and vetoed it, and as a result, funds went down. How did the Washingotn Post lie? There might be a million reasons for her decision to cut funding, including her belief that she thought they already had enough money from prior years, but it's still a fact, isn't it? Say the Washington Post told half the story, but when you say they "lied," you hurt your own credibility.POPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00558836541249077077noreply@blogger.com