NY Times story gives additional context (yet another paywall, sorry)
Quote:
The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.
...
"They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded."
|
How "Trumpy" are these officials, really, if the intention is to get a bigger budget for the agency to do things the administration doesn't approve of?
AT MOST it was red on red crime from the Agency looking for its budget from Congress; which makes it interesting, but not at all surprising, not really all that damning, not really even NEWS. If it had been during the O administration, the facts would have been i-fuckin-dentical because that's how the budget works, you have to get stuff past the more idiotic Repubs in Congress. But you wouldn't click on that. S'boring.
Actual news story: CDC preens its 2018 budget proposals to get them passed in Congress
Story's presented narrative: Trump administration officials are Orwellian
if you assume the Post is harshly administration, you get closer to the truth, a truth you need even if you are anti-administration.
UT's 15-year running moral: Politics makes you stupid.