The A1 article is about Obama's proposed budget and the cuts the WH is proposing:

Obama's Budget Knife Yields Modest Trims

Right in the headline readers get the spin; Obama wants cuts, but they're not enough. (i.e. 17B? Puh-lease.)

But is that really the Post's job to make that claim that Obama's cuts fall short in a straight news story? By comparison here are some other news org headlines which treat the story in a much more straight forward manner:

-"“W.H. on Budget: $3.55 Trillion...With $17 Billion in Cuts” [ABC]

-“Obama set to suggest $17B in cuts” (USA Today)

-“Obama Will Propose $17 Billion in Budget Cuts” [WSJ]

'“Obama Plans $17B In Cuts” [The Hill]

-“Obama Will Propose $17 Billion in Budget Cuts ” [NYTimes]

Meanwhile, where did the WashPost get the idea that Obama's cuts were too “modest”? The GOP, of course:

The relatively short list of proposed program cuts quickly drew fire from Republicans who learned of them yesterday.