Why don't they just admit they're against spending cuts?

The Republicans won the House of Representatives with a promise to cut this year's budget by $100 billion. When their leadership lowered that number first to $50 billion, and then to less than $40 billion, the media accused them of breaking promises and posturing.

Now, facing a revolt in their ranks, the Republican leaders are back to the $100 billion in spending cuts. The media's response?

In all of their posturing, Republican lawmakers have studiously avoided making clear to voters what vital government services would be slashed or disappear if they got their way . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/opinion/17thu1.html?_r=2&hp

So, if you break your promise to cut spending, you're posturing.

But, if you keep your promise to cut spending, you're also posturing.

Why don't they just admit that they're opposed to any spending cuts?

By the way - - the New York Times is now concerned that these cuts could negatively impact the number of "agents that keep the borders secure". Of course, this is the same newspaper in favor of open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens and the DREAM Act, and opposed to the Arizona immigration law.