Clever media reporting on the CBO numbers

Most of the news articles say something like:

"cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. 

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade."

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the only way this math works is if the bill involves a tax increase of 940+138 billion.  Which is 1.078 trillion. According to the WSJ,

        "The answer lies mainly in new taxes and curbs on Medicare spending."

Duh, so I was half right.  Wish the rest of the media would be more honest.  The New York Times does mention, in passing

"it would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, with additional tax revenue and Medicare savings."

I like their use of "revenue" and "savings".  Next time Republicans want to cut a government program, I assume the Times will call that "savings", not a "cut".  Sure they will.  Buried near the bottom are the hard figures of $438 billion in new taxes.   (Same for the Yahoo article)  The L.A. Times, somewhat more honestly, calls them "cuts in federal Medicare expenses", which, of course, are certainly not cuts in your Medicare benefits.  No sirree Bob.  Nice spin by the mainstream media.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things for anybody else who was confused.  Now, the benefits of the bill and greatly increased coverage will, all in all, likely be worth the extra taxes and Medicare cuts.  Especially for those of us who aren't rich and aren't on Medicare.  :-)  I just wish both sides could have a serious discussion of these vital issues and act like grownups.