Once again, per Darleen’s post, below
We’re institutionalizing a false notion of what a “cut†is. We’ve ceded ground on what “revenues†and “tax expenditures†mean. If we simply froze this current budget going forward, the CBO would report that as a $9 Trillion cut to government. No new spending = a $9 Trillion cut. Yup.
It’s all a joke. And pretending that we’ve won anything — or cut anything other than a rounding error on future baseline increases — is playing on the left’s linguistic turf.
I won’t be part of it any more.
Jeff nails it. Of course, Jeff actually understands the powers of language, and the fact that words are what we freaking think with. So if we end up calling taxes “revenue enhancements” and spending “stimulus,” and no new spending “spending cuts,” because the GOP and conservatives are too freaking stupid to understand what they are ceding here, then Americans will actually start to think in these terms.
I mean, I think we’re probably totally screwed no matter what we do, but my god, why make it easier for the bastards?
Yeah, that’s about it. I’m out. Done.
We can’t censor non-government employees, nor should we try, but it could be made law that representatives of the government must talk about budgets and deficits differently.
What if it were required that representatives of the Congress and Executive, including the CBO and OMB, could only score budgets based on a two year window? Only score the upcoming FY, and the FY after that only when in the 1st year of a Congress. If asked to “project”, the answer simply would be “The Current Administration and Congress may not bind future Administrations and Congresses, and therefore such projections are inherently meaningless.”
Add on top of this a requirement that budgets may only be discussed in absolute terms, not relative. There may be no squabbling over what constitutes an automatic baseline and what is a cut. This year we spent $4.1 trillion, the budget proposal calls for us to spend $4.3 trillion next year.
Sure, the media and other commentators can do the math. Make them do it. In the official published reports, we must demand truth and accuracy. We know that 10-year scoring is a scam, that cuts and savings back-loaded into the later years of such deals never happen, and that the adjustable baseline accounting forces growth in spending whether we can afford it or not. We may not be able to change these practices yet, but we can start by forcing them out into the clear light of day.
Oh, and it would make my heart glad if we could somehow construe the personal fiduciary responsibility clauses of Sarbanes-Oxley so as to punish Congresspersons who blatantly lie about the budget. I’m looking at you, Harry Reid, and your ridiculous “savings” from winding down theoretical wars that nobody ever intended to fight.
I don’t much care for your suggestions, Martin. How about this: make it an affirmative defense to changes of assault or mayhem on elected officials that they lied. It would be up to the jury to decide if the evidence produced by the defendant sufficed to show the official lied.
In short: under my proposal it would be ok to rip out Harry Reid’s lying tongue with a pair of pliers.
Make sure you heat those pliers a nice, full cherry-red first…
I’ll go light the torch.