A friend recently sent to me a Reuters story on the Bush Administration’s proposed budget for the 2007 fiscal period. The author of the story provided a very “objective” analysis of the President’s proposals in the typical advocacy-journalism manner. In pertinent part, the President is proposing a .05% reduction in discretionary spending with exception of national security items.
If you are a Leftist you’re probably thinking all sorts of nasty things about the President at this point and if you are on the political right, you’re dancing a jig. But before you get too angry or happy you might want to read a little further.
If you have ever read Alice in Wonderland, you are familiar with the following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty concerning the obvious meaning of words:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “itmeans just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”--- Louis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland.
So remember that we are talking about the government and just as in Wonderland, words don’t always mean what you think they mean.
Where government fiscal policy is concerned, a “cut” isn’t actually a reduction in overall dollars expended on a particular programme. Rather “cut” simply means that there is a reduction in the rate of growth over the previous year’s budgetary allotment (a.k.a. the “Baseline”). That is to say, if the programme is guaranteed an annual increase of 10% over Baseline and the future budget allows for an increase of 8% instead, this is considered – in Washingtonese – a spending/budget cut of 2%. You’re probably thinking: “But that’s an increase of 8%!!” That just goes to show that you are in no way qualified for a career in politics. By the way, all non-discretionary budget items have guaranteed increases.
The reason this system works (most of the time that is) is that the government has the ability to tax. When their shenanigans get out of hand, they simply levy a higher tax to cover the errors. And don’t forget, they can also “borrow” funds from the “Social Security Trust Fund,” which is kept in a secure location where it is protected under the watchful eyes of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Where government fiscal policy is concerned, a “cut” isn’t actually a reduction in overall dollars expended on a particular programme. Rather “cut” simply means that there is a reduction in the rate of growth over the previous year’s budgetary allotment (a.k.a. the “Baseline”). That is to say, if the programme is guaranteed an annual increase of 10% over Baseline and the future budget allows for an increase of 8% instead, this is considered – in Washingtonese – a spending/budget cut of 2%. You’re probably thinking: “But that’s an increase of 8%!!” That just goes to show that you are in no way qualified for a career in politics. By the way, all non-discretionary budget items have guaranteed increases.
The reason this system works (most of the time that is) is that the government has the ability to tax. When their shenanigans get out of hand, they simply levy a higher tax to cover the errors. And don’t forget, they can also “borrow” funds from the “Social Security Trust Fund,” which is kept in a secure location where it is protected under the watchful eyes of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
The point is, you can never truly “cut” government spending. As Ronald Reagan said, “The closest we will ever come to eternal life is a government programme.”