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.
[…] while I’ve pontificated about this issue in the past (three times in 2011 and two times in 2012), it’s definitely time for a refresher […]
[…] dishonest, as I’ve explained in interviews with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano. Here are the three things you need to […]
[…] in Washington is pervasively dishonest, as I’ve explained in interviews with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano. Here are the three things you need to […]
[…] percent tax cut. You may be thinking that’s ridiculously dishonest and beyond the pale (and it is), but that’s how they do budgeting in […]
[…] But this simply means that the burden of government spending won’t grow as fast as previously planned. I’ve exposed this scam in discussions with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano. […]
[…] is the point I made in interviews with Judge Napolitano and John […]
[…] is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting […]
[…] is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting […]
[…] is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting […]
[…] Brian points out it’s a real cut, not a “Washington cut” that occurs when spending doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] continue growing under Trump’s budget. But they find it politically advantageous to engage in “Washington math,” which is when you get to claim a program is being cut if it doesn’t get a sufficiently large […]
[…] growing under Trump’s budget. But they find it politically advantageous to engage in “Washington math,” which is when you get to claim a program is being cut if it doesn’t get a […]
[…] I’m frustrated because I’m reminded of the terribly dishonest way that budgets are debated and discussed in Washington. Simply stated, almost everyone starts with a “baseline” of big, […]
[…] explained this biased and deceptive budgetary scam in these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, and also nailed the New York Times for using this dishonest approach when reporting […]
[…] explained this biased and deceptive budgetary scam in these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, and also nailed the New York Times for using this dishonest approach when reporting […]
[…] explained this biased and deceptive budgetary scam in these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, and also nailed the New York Times for using this dishonest approach when reporting […]
[…] to preclude “savage” and “draconian” spending cuts, they’re using the dishonest DC definition of a “cut,” which is when spending doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] complained about that sleazy tactic while appearing with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano, but I didn’t think a regular journalist would ever expose the […]
[…] this is just part of a larger problem. As I explained in these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, the politicians and interest groups have given us a budget process that assumes […]
[…] In other words, ignore the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interests when they say we have to raises taxes because otherwise the budget would have to be cut by trillions of dollars. They’re either stupid or lying (mostly the latter, deliberately using the dishonest version of Washington budget math). […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] In other words, ignore the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interests when they say we have to raises taxes because otherwise the budget would have to be cut by trillions of dollars. They’re either stupid or lying (mostly the latter, deliberately using the dishonest version of Washington budget math). […]
[…] In other words, ignore the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interests when they say we have to raises taxes because otherwise the budget would have to be cut by trillions of dollars. They’re either stupid or lying (mostly the latter, deliberately using the dishonest version of Washington budget math). […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] glad that I exposed the dishonest Washington budget math used by critics of the Ryan plan (which allows government spending to grow by an average of 3.1 […]
[…] is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned). […]
[…] that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors […]
[…] a 2 percent cut. Sadly, what I want doesn’t matter. Budget policy in Washington is governed by a fundamentally dishonest process that says that reductions in increases are actually […]
[…] percent cut. Sadly, what I want doesn’t matter. Budget policy in Washington is governed by a fundamentally dishonest process that says that reductions in increases are actually […]
[…] glad that I exposed the dishonest Washington budget math used by critics of the Ryan plan (which allows government spending to grow by an average of 3.1 […]
[…] glad that I exposed the dishonest Washington budget math used by critics of the Ryan plan (which allows government spending to grow by an average of 3.1 […]
[…] of phoney spending cuts, a point near and dear to my heart (as you can see by these interviews with Judge Napolitano and John […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] made similar points last year in this interview with Judge Napolitano. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] to focus on the underlying issue, which is whether there is any alternative to immediate – and real – spending […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] as I’ve explained before, this demagoguery is based on the dishonest Washington practice of assuming that spending should […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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). […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Hundreds-line-up-for-Dallas-County-Rental-Vouchers-125555383.html
Keep hammering this Dan – I don’t think it’s sinking in out there …