What Isn't There Is Hard to Notice

As a trial attorney, I have often run into the evidentiary problem of making a point that certain evidence ought to exist, and the fact that it doesn't exist is telling.  If the plaintiff is right that they told and told their stock broker (or trustee, or lawyer, or investment adviser, etc.) that they didn't want to invest in risky stocks prior to the downturn in 2000 (or 2008 or 2011), shouldn't there be some document somewhere that documents that?   A letter?   A memo?  An email?   A note to self?   Something?  

Ace makes a good point on the question of whether federal government spending can and should be cut, reacting to a comment by Obama yesterday that there is "not much further we can cut":

Let me note the dog that didn't bark.

Have you heard any stories of older, more expensive federal employees losing their jobs during this budget crisis -- as corporations typically do when they are hemorrhaging money?

Have you read any stories about departments drastically cutting back and looking for money-saving solutions -- doing more with less, as they say, or "working smarter, not harder"?

Has the media been full of stories by weary bureaucrats complaining, like teachers are apparently instructed by their unions to claim, that they have to buy their own supplies to properly do their jobs?

Has there been any grousing that federal employees are missing expected pay raises and promotions, being forced to work at their old salaries through this crisis?

The answer is no.

While the country is teeters on the verge of a Depression (if it has not tottered over already), the federal bureaucracy remains gold-plated and immune to cutbacks.

How come the mainstream media doesn't notice the same lack of evidence of a federal government bureaucracy cut to the bone?  Oh, right, because they, like any adversary, are zealously advocating for their client, which in this case is Obama or, more precisely, Big Government, Inc.