One of the first things I learned when coming to Washington is that there is pervasive institutional dishonesty. A classic example is the way politicians have rigged the system so a “spending cut” takes place if the budget grows by, say, 6 percent instead of 8 percent.
This is sort of like claiming your diet is successful because you’re gaining 2 pounds each week instead of 5 pounds. I explain this scam in an interview with Judge Napolitano.
Keep hammering this Dan – I don’t think it’s sinking in out there …
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Hundreds-line-up-for-Dallas-County-Rental-Vouchers-125555383.html
[...] The entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the [...]
[...] The entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the [...]
[...] entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the [...]
[...] the Bad, and the Ugly in Their Budget Plan | Cato @ Liberty "The entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the [...]
[...] entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the [...]
[...] government-slowdown fight earlier this year), and that’s even assuming that we should accept Washington’s dishonest definition of a budget cut. As I explained to Investor’s Business Daily: In Washington-speak, a spending cut means a [...]
[...] Politicians last night announced the framework of a deal to increase the debt limit. In addition to authorizing about $900 billion more red ink right away, it would require immediate budget cuts of more than $900 billion, though “immediate” means over 10 years and “budget cuts” means spending still goes up (but not as fast as previously planned). [...]
[...] grow as fast with the budget agreement. The bad news is that it still grows. In other words, the supposed “budget cuts” are based on Washington math, where a spending increase is called a spending cut simply because outlays didn’t rise even [...]
[...] Politicians last night announced the framework of a deal to increase the debt limit. In addition to authorizing about $900 billion more red ink right away, it would require immediate budget cuts of more than $900 billion, though “immediate” means over 10 years and “budget cuts” means spending still goes up (but not as fast as previously planned). [...]
[...] grow as fast with the budget agreement. The bad news is that it still grows. In other words, the supposed “budget cuts” are based on Washington math, where a spending increase is called a spending cut simply because outlays didn’t rise even [...]
[...] as I’ve explained before, this demagoguery is based on the dishonest Washington practice of assuming that spending should [...]
[...] will go into effect. But don’t get too excited. We’re mostly talking about the DC version of spending cuts, which simply means that spending won’t rise as fast as previously [...]
[...] sequestration) will go into effect. But don’t get too excited. We’re mostly talking about the DC version of spending cuts, which simply means that spending won’t rise as fast as previously [...]
[...] is hogwash. The automatic spending cuts are only “cuts” using Washington’s dishonest budget math. Here’s a chart showing how much spending will grow over the next 10 years, and the [...]
[...] analysis is on the mark, and he doesn’t let Romney get away with the business-as-usual Washington scam of claiming that a reduction in the projected growth of spending i…. Using honest math rather than DC math, Romney’s budget plan (assuming he is serious) would [...]
[...] so a “spending cut” takes place if the budget grows by, say, 6% instead of 8%. The nefarious D.C. budget math is explained here by Dan Mitchell during an interview with Judge [...]
[...] it is blatantly inaccurate. The supposed “budget cuts” are only reductions if one uses dishonest Washington budget math. For those who rely on real-world numbers, total spending will climb significantly even if the [...]
[...] are only budget cuts if you use dishonest Washington budget math, which magically turns spending increases into spending cuts simply because the burden of [...]
[...] are only budget cuts if you use dishonest Washington budget math, which magically turns spending increases into spending cuts simply because the burden of [...]
[...] are only budget cuts if you use dishonest Washington budget math, which magically turns spending increases into spending cuts simply because the burden of [...]
[...] to focus on the underlying issue, which is whether there is any alternative to immediate – and real – spending [...]
[...] suppose I also should say that her chart is misleading because it accepts the dishonest Washington definition that a “spending cut” occurs any time politicians increase spending by less than [...]
[...] that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors [...]
[...] that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors [...]
[...] that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors [...]
[...] made similar points last year in this interview with Judge Napolitano. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike [...]
[...] increases are not budget cuts. Unless, of course, proponents of big government decide to use the dishonest political definition that spending is cut when the budget doesn’t increase as fast a…. But if that’s the case, then they are turning Keynesian economics into a political [...]