Posted on 12/05/2012 10:08:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If the fiscal cliff talks make Lindsay Lohan look like a productive member of society, perhaps it's because President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of "baseline budgeting."
Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is "reducing the deficit," which they suggest means making real spending choices. They are talking about a "$4 trillion plan," or something, regardless of how that number is reached.
Here's the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's "baseline" has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms.
The most absurd current example is Mr. Obama's claim that his "$4 trillion" plan reduces the deficit by about $800 billion over 10 years by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those "savings," as he calls them, are measured against a White House budget office spending baseline that is fictional. Those wars are already being unwound and everyone knows the money will never be spent. But they are called "savings" to gull the public and make the deficit reduction add up to a large-sounding $4 trillion.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
No less a Democrat than New York Governor Andrew Cuomo denounced it in 2011 as a "sham" and "deceptive." He wrote in the New York Post that state spending was "dictated by hundreds of rates and formulas that are marbleized throughout New York State laws that govern different programs—formulas that have been built into the law over decades, without regard to fiscal realities, performance or accountability." Then he proceeded to continue baseline budgeting.
Anybody remember, “Less is more.”
Anybody remember, “Less is more”?
Here’s how I see the con working for a typical family...
Your expected family’s income next year is $100,000.
You expect to EXHAUST ALL OF it from paying your mortgage, food, transportation, property taxes, etc.
You planned to buy two cars, which will be expected to cost $50,000.
You decide to CUT expenses by buying only one car instead of two ( That will now cost you $25,000 instead of $50,000 ).
Therefore, you have CUT spending by $25,000.
Here’s how I see the con working for a typical family...
Your expected family’s income next year is $100,000.
You expect to EXHAUST ALL OF it from paying your mortgage, food, transportation, property taxes, etc.
You planned to buy two cars, which will be expected to cost $50,000.
You decide to CUT expenses by buying only one car instead of two ( That will now cost you $25,000 instead of $50,000 ).
Therefore, you have CUT spending by $25,000.
When they vote for a continuing resolution Boener should only allow it if they discontinue baseline budgeting.
My question concerned the derisive retorts by Libs to the GOP explanations of the “draconian cuts” of ‘95.
The GOP was trying to sell it's reduction of increases as ‘cuts’ to its base while at the same time telling Libs that they would be getting ‘more’[than the previous budget] To this the Libs and MSM would reply snidely, “Oh,...so Less is More...Ha ha”
Getting upset about “baseline budgeting” misses the point, IMHO. The real issue is why the GOP allows itself to get played in this game at all. The Democrats get to make us look like the Grinch Whole Stole Christmas because we demand that there be “cuts in spending” for Down’s Syndrome children, while all they are asking for is that Gordon Gekko “pay a little more” out of his ill-gotten gains. Yet the truth is that sooner or later those cuts are going to be necessary, regardless of whether taxes are increased or not. Why should we be the stewards of the fiscal solvency of all of these Democrat spending programs, demanding “cuts” in return for tax increases? Why don’t we just oppose all tax increases, and let the chips fall where they may?
If that at some point (probably sooner rather than later) results in a Eurozone-type fiscal crisis necessitating cuts in various sorts of federal programs, then we just say, no cuts to the military, and then let the Democrats tear themselves apart trying to decide which of their sacred cows will be gored, and which saved. They won’t cut the military against united GOP opposition, and sure, they’ll make a lot of noise attempting to blame the crisis on Gordon Gekko, i.e. the GOP, but it would be to no effect. As long as the GOP stays united and people keep voting them into office in enough numbers to stop tax increases and cuts to the military, we could be just as duplicitous as they, and stand aside while they struggle to decide what to do.
We could even get in front of television cameras opposing the Democrats’ mean-spirited plan to “cut Medicare and Social Security, which people worked so hard to earn, in order to pay for welfare programs for those who haven’t”, while saying nothing about taxes. It’s not as though the low-information voters that decide elections require any sort of reason or logic from their politicians.
“$4 trillion” plan reduces the deficit by about $800 billion over 10 years.
Three card monte anyone?.
Take the story of the FBI storming some MD guy's farm for his guns or the prosecturers in NO over the shooting by police during Katrina, the crap that is FEMA etc. etc.
If you make an arguement for good government and POINT out waste people understand, but trying to talk about budgets - heck even Dave Ramsey has a hard time explaining budgets to family members taking a course.
A Confidence Game, or Con Game, is a way for a person to steal money from someone else. It’s called a Confidence Game because the thief pretends to show confidence in the victim and then demands that the victim reciprocate and show confidence in the thief. A mugger sticks a gun in your face and demands your money. A Con Game is much more subtle. The thief plays upons the victim’s behaviors, emotions, beliefs and senses. The thief takes advantage of the victim’s greed, arrogance, fear, compassion and naïveté.
I don’t remember it that way. I remember the media and dems calling it cuts in ‘95, and Gingrich insisting that it was just a reduction in the increase.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.