Well then, it's been quite a week in the news business.

First of all, let me say that W's budget is pretty much dead on arrival.

The fact that W is a lame duck in his final term notwithstanding, the budget is just too much for anybody in Congress, Republicans included, to stomach.

W's budget is fatally flawed - politically and practically.

He's proposing a five-year, $36 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid.

Congress already approved a five-year $39 billion cut in those programs. Do you supposed Congressmen are ready to sell that to their constituents? Especially the elderly and disabled?

And what about all those insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and nursing homes?

Do you suppose Congressmen are ready to stand up to them?

W says - and it's true - that the "cuts" are really not "cuts" at all. They are reductions in growth. Medicare and Medicaid spending will grow during those years, just not as much.

That is true. But there's a reason programs grow. It's because stuff costs more every year and if there are cuts in Medicaid and Medicare, somebody (guess who) has to make up the difference.

At the same time, defense gets a 6.9 percent bump and homeland security gets a 9.8 percent boost.

Also, W's deficit-cutting plan makes some wildly optimistic assumptions.

Inflation will remain at bay, interest rates will remain flat and unemployment will remain steady below 5 percent.

IF all that happens and the Congress goes along with the idea that outside of defense and homeland security, there will be an across the board .5 percent decrease in discretionary spending, the current deficit will be cut in half by 2009.

That's a pretty tall if.

W says Iraq will cost $50 billion and Katrina $18 billion. I believe those numbers are optimistic, too. We likely will spend much more in those areas.

So all in all, I don't think W's budget has much of a chance of passage in its current form.

I just hope the compromise doesn't wind up driving the already-staggering deficit even higher.

But that's just more wild optimism.

*****

I was watching Coretta Scott King's funeral on CNN the other day and I couldn't help but notice how political some of the speakers were.

Seems liberals just can't pass up an opportunity to bash W - even if it's at a funeral service.

A couple weeks back I wrote about how Democrats are poised for major gains in the House in the upcoming this midterm election, but they risk blowing it because of all the acerbic rhetoric.

The King funeral was a pretty good example of that.

But you have to give the speakers some credit. It took some creativity to weave the phrase "weapons of mass distraction" into a memorial speech eulogizing King.

I am not the only one noticing this.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) says his party's standing with the American people is "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months. ... We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about."

I think the Democrats spew the vitriol at their peril. It's all about votes.

The people who buy into all the W bashing are W haters who are already going to vote Democrat.

Those people think Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong.

The people Democrats need to woo to the ballot box are thoughtful people in the middle who actually think for themselves.

Those kind of people want to hear ideas and issues. They won't be swayed by slander.

*****

I, of course, am a ardent supporter of the First Amendment.

I truly believe in free speech, free expression and, obviously, a free press.

But I have often said that freedom of the press is only afforded to those of us who are fortunate enough to control the press.

So with that control, in my view, comes a great deal of responsibility.

This brings me to the issue of the Danish cartoonist who depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

And this also is where I am at odds with some of my colleagues.

You see, this cartoonist and his editor knew full well what the likely outcome of publishing that cartoon would be.

Surely the sentiments expressed in the cartoon had been published in editorials hundreds of time throughout Europe.

Surely everyone who can read knows there are radical muslims. Radical muslims have been roundly and routinely criticized in print and electronic media worldwide.

It was the image - the likeness of Muhammad in the cartoon - that was the problem.

The cartoonist and editor knew they would push thousands upon thousands of people over the edge into violence and they published it anyway.

In my view, that's irresponsible. Sure, I have the right to publish inflammatory, vile material in this newspaper and I am confident there are readers who would embrace that material.

But that would be irresponsible journalism.

Certainly, the Danish editor should have the freedom to publish whatever he wants.

I just wish he would have practiced a little more self-restraint.

There really is no need to pick up the big stick and swat that particular hornets nest. [[In-content Ad]]