It's time for Americans to insist that politicians end their practice of using deceitful doublespeak to hide their fraudulent accounting practices.

A decrease in the rate of spending growth relative to a projection is not a spending cut.

A spending cut is reduction in the actual dollars spent compared to what is being spent right now. The way to accomplish one is to abolish programs, cut off subsidies, shut down unproductive government departments, and permanently lay off government employees.

Until we begin using honest language to describe the elements of the issue, we will be subjected to the same BS spin games that distort the debate now.

Can I tell my congressman that my salary was cut this year? Normally I get about a 2% raise, this year my raise was 1.75%. So my salary was cut, right?

Funny thing is that Gump repeated the Achorn editorial nearly word for word yesterday. Do you think he spoke after reading the lies or did he make them up himself?

They should have let the Bush tax cuts expire so the Democrats couldn't use it to hide behind. Taxes would have gone up and woops, "How come we still have a deficit and where's the jobs and how come we still need to raise the debt ceiling." It would have called their bluff.

Max, wishing for the economy to have dramatically worsened is a tough way to send a message.

The Dems have no excuse. They have not put forward even a single plan for public consideration. All they do in their cowardice is criticize, in the most slanderous terms, every idea that the Republicans have offered.

Why the entire public does not condemn Obama, Reid and company is a mystery to me.

(Actually, it isn't a mystery at all. The combination of Leftist indoctrination and general failure to educate our people to be aware and thoughtful about the res publica is an explicit strategy of the "Progressives" who control the public education system.)

So in 1941, we faced an existential threat from fascists in Berlin, Rome and Tokyo and triumphed while government expenditures were a lower percentage of GDP than today.

Where is today's existential threat? Washington, DC and many state capitols, that's where.

Let's see some real cuts. Unless government workers are laid off, there can be no meaningful cuts. We need entitlement cuts too - Medicare, SS - as well as cuts in regulatory overreach.

"We need entitlement cuts too - Medicare, SS..."

Chuck, how would you cut Social Security? As it is, people can't start collecting much until 62 or even 67. And even then, they don't collect very much. I get my annual statement and it says that at my current pace, I'll collect about 1/3 of my current salary.

Should that be cut? Should we simply eliminate it for all people born after a certain date?

I have a hard time seeing the difference between social security and the *concept* of state-run pensions. I know the actual execution of pensions in RI is different from social security in ways like being able to collect multiple pensions and the ability to collect much earlier. But really, what's the difference? The government takes money from you now and gives it back to you later in retirement. Sounds like a pension system, no?

And I still think I should be allowed to privately invest at least a portion of the money I'm putting into the system.

There is a zero percent chance of Federal employee layoffs while Democrats control the Senate and Executive Office. At least 95% of the $100k+ employees who lounge around the dozens of useless HUD, Ed., etc. Agencies are hardcore Democratic voters and donors for life. Not to mention the unions have made it effectively illegal to fire anyone. Even if you did magically see layoffs, the thousands and thousands of surly, morbidly obese GS13 and GS14 step 9 HR and admin employees who surf eBay all day and take 3-hour lunches will be the last to go thanks to union seniority rules and you'd end up firing all the young GS9s who actually do all the work and want to fix things. Why should an HR employee ever make GS13 or GS14 in the first place? They fill out forms and answer phones 4 hours a day. There are huge, systemic problems that aren't going to be solved in a budget debate.

There is a zero percent chance of Federal employee layoffs while Democrats control the Senate and Executive Office. At least 95% of the $100k+ employees who lounge around the dozens of useless HUD, Ed., etc. Agencies are hardcore Democratic voters and donors for life. Not to mention the unions have made it effectively illegal to fire anyone. Even if you did magically see layoffs, the thousands and thousands of surly, morbidly obese GS13 and GS14 step 9 HR and admin employees who surf eBay all day and take 3-hour lunches will be the last to go thanks to union seniority rules and you'd end up firing all the young GS9s who actually do all the work and want to fix things. Why should an HR employee ever make GS13 or GS14 in the first place? They fill out forms and answer phones 4 hours a day. There are huge, systemic problems that aren't going to be solved in a budget debate.

Having sifted through CBPP data reports in the past, I'd suggest that we're not looking at an objective fact, but (again) at a series of assumptions and narrow conclusions that are eminently arguable.

Let me get this straight, you're suggesting the Bush didn't add $5 trillion to the deficit? Of course to admit that would be to admit that it was only when Obama took office that you "conservatives" found fiscal conservative religion.

As you correctly note, the costs for Obama are estimates because most of them don't take effect until 2014 or later. Read - the current debt is not a result of Obama's policies.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

"President Obama ramped up activities in Afghanistan, yet the chart does not include any such costs."

That's a good point, but I can't help but wonder how many of these come-lately fiscal conservatives voted against that? Yeah, sure, Ron Paul and Kucinich tried to cut that funding. One guess who shot that down...

www.dailypaul.com/157884/ron-pauls-bid-to-end-afghan-war-funding-blocked-by-gop-reps-whom-the-tea-party-backed

Patrick - in less than 4 weeks I'll be 61. I would gladly accept a 1-2 year deferral of collecting SS if and only if the government civilian employment is cut by 15% and the budget is rolled back proportionately. We are all of us victims of a Ponzi scheme that dwarfs Madoff's. The difference between the last two generations of lawmakers and Madoff is that Madoff is in jail. I'd like that money just like you would, but getting it comes at an unacceptable cost to my children and the children they may have.

For starters in cutting government, lay off 100% of the Department of Education and most of the Department of Homeland Security. I'll take my chances at the airport - most terror attempts have been foiled by passengers, not TSA. The BATF has no unique mission and is corrupt at the top. Gone, but for minor savings. Figure out a better way to fight our losing war on all drugs and fight the serious ones. Cut the EPA off at the knees - CO2 is not, repeat, not, a pollutant. Repeal ObamaCare - it will never cost less or even do as much as private care will. Repeal the Medicare drug entitlement Bush signed into law that was never planned for or budgeted for. High speed rail - WTF? You can find all sorts of suggestions for what else has to go at Heritage or other adult think tanks. And grow the economy by simplifying and flattening the tax code. And stop handing out money to welfare case state governments like ours.

Dan

Of course we will not see government layoffs with the Dems holding the Chief Executive office and the Senate.

Every dog has his day and every pig his martinmas. Look for the elective slaughter of the pigs in 2012. Until then, Congress and Obama are all lame ducks.

Great analysis; typically distorted, lefty, mendacious nonsense from the "progessive" "newspaper of record" in Rude Island.
I read this somewhere yesterday:
"The Democrats are like the Mayan Calendar: they're going to end in 2012." Well said.
It's nonesense like this from the ruling class that makes me want to move to Colorado. HOLD IT!! I did!

"We are all of us victims of a Ponzi scheme that dwarfs Madoff's."

Liar, liar pants on fire!

At least that's what Politifact says.

"Look for the elective slaughter of the pigs in 2012."

Actually, why should we believe that? Maybe the current pigs get slaughtered but then we'll just have a new batch of pigs. Every president grows the federal government and the federal workforce. Even Bush, even Reagan. So I have a hard time believing that if we put Republicans in charge of both sides of Congress and the White House that we'll have fiscal responsibility. Nope, we'll just have them spending billions on different things.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but historically, that's the way it has happened.

Patrick

2012 isn't the end-all. Every election, we'll need to toss the bums out until we get a significant number who aren't more interested in lining their own pockets than they are in the nation's welfare. Such people do exist. I hope.

"We'll have them spending billions on different things." We're out of money. If either side persists in crazy spending, a billion dollars will be like Zimbabwe dollars, which come denominated in billion dollar notes. One way or another, the jig is up.Spend your worthless trillions to no effect or stop spending on functions outside the core required. Hell, I'd gladly see the government downsized to the horrible time when Clinton was President. Better yet, to the horrible time when Reagan was President.

It's true. Gotta love the choices we have in America: the big government party and the *really* big government party. The Republicans increase the military to absolutely stupid levels ("conservative welfare") to satisfy their authoritarian fetish and bomb goat herders across the world. Then the Democrats take over and increase pretty much everything. Elections are just choosing the method of our execution.

"Every election, we'll need to toss the bums out until we get a significant number who aren't more interested in lining their own pockets than they are in the nation's welfare. Such people do exist. I hope."

That will take at least a generation of hard work. The reputation of politicians has fallen so low that most people I know are repelled by the idea of entering it. They might run for an executive position, such as governor, or mayor. But, they have no interest in a legislative position. They see that as a sordid life of compromising principles, under the table double dealing and pandering to the electorate.

I have read a little history of the Founders and Framers, they are usually portrayed as "pure". But, look at the "deals" they had to make and wonder how "pure" the debates were. For instance slavery was opposed by most, but they could not find a means to end it. So compromise, compromise. Although the Constitution impilicitly permits slavery, the term is never used. Instead it is people "held to service or labor".

"Let me get this straight, you're suggesting the Bush didn't add $5 trillion to the deficit? Of course to admit that would be to admit that it was only when Obama took office that you "conservatives" found fiscal conservative religion."

Russ,
Are you telling everyone that we shouldn't allow Republicans to correct the problem because they were part of the cause. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, Democrats would have just kept spending all the while blaming the Republicans for it.

Russ,

If you were to revisit history you will find that your so called 'fiscal conservative religion' was merely a philosophical reaction to the stimulus and Obamacare.