About this time last year, with the White House about to release a new budget, the press was filled with stories about President Obama being a tough-minded budget cutter.
Once the budget was released, I looked at the real numbers and explained how the burden of government spending would jump by $2 trillion in just 10 years if the President’s plan was enacted.
So why is there such a disconnect? Why does the establishment media report about “cuts” that would “slash” the budget, when actual spending is rising?
I explain this scam to John Stossel.
I made similar points last year in this interview with Judge Napolitano.
International Liberty 
[…] 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 […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, here, […]
[…] was a big fan of (and occasional guest on) John Stossel’s TV show, and I’m now a big fan of his videos (see here, here, […]
[…] budget process 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 […]
[…] Since I’m not partisan, here’s some advice for South Windsor Democrats. Adopt D.C.-type budgeting and build in a “baseline” showing 5 percent annual tax increases. Then, when you […]
[…] won’t grow as fast as previously planned. I’ve exposed this scam in discussions with John Stossel and Judge […]
[…] Which is the point I made in interviews with Judge Napolitano and John Stossel. […]
[…] the Trump Administration should respond with charts showing that the other side is being hysterical and inaccurate since he’s merely trying to slow down the growth of […]
[…] spending for international organizations. And we’re talking about a real budget cut, not the phony kind of cut where spending merely grows at a slightly slower […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] budget, I hit on some of my usual topics such as growth, real-world fiscal numbers, tax reform, fake budget cuts, entitlement reform, and my Golden […]
[…] For what it’s worth, I’m sure most of the critics actually do understand that government will 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 increase. I’m not joking. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] very few based on this data) and how many were based on the fake-spending-cuts approach that is common in the United […]
[…] as the assertion that there are trillions of dollars of spending cuts in plans that actually increase spending. How do you have a debate with people who don’t understand […]
[…] in spending, not the make-believe we-didn’t-increase-spending-as-fast-as-we-planned “cuts” that often take place in […]
[…] But let’s look at some of the other nations (keeping in mind “expenditure reductions” are mostly just reductions in planned increases, just like in the U.S.). […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] is actually going to get less money next year. In other words, a real budget cut, not one of those fake Washington cuts that occur when spending doesn’t increase as fast as […]
[…] freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of […]
[…] the video sort of acquiesces to the dishonest Washington terminology by asking whether we should cut spending or raise taxes, implying those are the only two options. […]
[…] than the federal budget in 2012. And I’m using honest math, not the Washington approach of calling an increase a cut because the budget might have grown even faster. Indeed, the nation actually has enjoyed a two-year spending slowdown that substantially reduced […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] you use honest budget numbers, there’s no need to impose steep spending cuts, though that actually would be […]
[…] in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial baseline […]
[…] Just like in the United States, politicians in the United Kingdom use the deceptive practice of “baseline budgeting” as part of fiscal policy. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] spent less in 2011 than they did in 2010 (unlike the fake version of spending cuts that you find in the U.S. and U.K., where spending simply grows at a slower […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of […]
[…] freedom and wants to explore the details. In previous appearances on his show, I’ve discussed dishonest fiscal policy in Washington, the differences between Texas and California, and the reverse Midas touch of […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] Why should we raise taxes when the “spending cuts” we get in exchange are based on dishonest Washington budget math? […]
[…] the video sort of acquiesces to the dishonest Washington terminology by asking whether we should cut spending or raise taxes, implying those are the only two options. I […]
[…] the video sort of acquiesces to the dishonest Washington terminology by asking whether we should cut spending or raise taxes, implying those are the only two options. I […]
[…] there are no genuine spending cuts since the President’s budget is based on dishonest baseline budgeting. At best, we’re simply talking about slowing the growth of […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] […]
[…] put spending cuts ahead of tax cuts. I’m worried that they won’t do spending cuts at all (even using the dishonest DC definition) and therefore wind up getting seduced into some sort of tax-increase deal that facilitates bigger […]
[…] the sequester is based on the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – i.e., when spending doesn’t rise as fast as projected in some artificial […]
[…] statism in Washington is a lot like trying to swim upstream. It seems that everything (how to measure spending cuts, how to estimate tax revenue, etc) is rigged to make your job […]
[…] statism in Washington is a lot like trying to swim upstream. It seems that everything (how to measure spending cuts, how to estimate tax revenue, etc) is rigged to make your job […]
[…] statism in Washington is a lot like trying to swim upstream. It seems that everything (how to measure spending cuts, how to estimate tax revenue, etc) is rigged to make your job […]
[…] statism in Washington is a lot like trying to swim upstream. It seems that everything (how to measure spending cuts, how to estimate tax revenue, etc) is rigged to make your job […]
[…] Just like in the United States, politicians in the United Kingdom use the deceptive practice of “baseline budgeting” as part of fiscal policy. […]
[…] Just like in the United States, politicians in the United Kingdom use the deceptive practice of “baseline budgeting” as part of fiscal policy. […]
[…] Just like in the United States, politicians in the United Kingdom use the deceptive practice of “baseline budgeting” as part of fiscal policy. […]
[…] spent less in 2011 than they did in 2010 (unlike the fake version of spending cuts that you find in the U.S. and U.K., where spending simply grows at a slower […]
[…] in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial baseline […]
[…] in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial […]
[…] genuine spending cuts (unlikely the fake cuts that characterize fiscal policy in nations like the United States and United Kingdom). Yes, the Baltic countries did raise some taxes, which undermined the positive […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] these John Stossel and Judge Napolitano interviews, for instance, I explain that the crooks in DC have created a […]
[…] growth by that amount. In other words, his “spending cut” is only a cut if you play the dishonest DC game of measuring “cuts” against a baseline of ever-expanding […]
[…] But I think Peter is being too kind, because even the changes in reimbursement rates for health care providers (which, as Peter notes, almost surely will evaporate in a very short period of time) are simply reductions in increases. In other words, spending will still grow, just not as fast as previously planned. In other words, the spending cuts are only cuts if you accept dishonest Washington terminology. […]
[…] agree with Obama – but only if one uses honest math. Needless to say, Obama wants to use Washington math, where spending increases get redefined as spending cuts if the burden of government spending […]
[…] put spending cuts ahead of tax cuts. I’m worried that they won’t do spending cuts at all (even using the dishonest DC definition) and therefore wind up getting seduced into some sort of tax-increase deal that facilitates bigger […]
[…] cuts ahead of tax cuts. I’m worried that they won’t do spending cuts at all (even using the dishonest DC definition) and therefore wind up getting seduced into some sort of tax-increase deal that facilitates bigger […]
[…] I suppose I should point out that he is completely wrong (using dishonest Washington budget math) when writing about “draconian cuts” since Cong. Ryan is merely proposing to slow down […]
[…] Medicare. He merely reduced the program’s rate of growth. Republicans correctly complain when leftists demagogue about non-existent spending cuts, but they lose all credibility when they use the same dishonest […]
[…] ministers will be cutting their budgets, though I recognize that they may be using the same kind of dishonest budgeting we use in America (“Sacre bleu, we raised spending by 5 percent instead of 12 percent, so […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] The supposed spending cuts in a “grand bargain” would be based on dishonest Washington math. If I’m supposed to take some sort of deal, whether it’s $10-$1, $3-$1, or $1-$1, I […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] The Wisconsin lawmaker also hit hard on the notion of phoney spending cuts, a point near and dear to my heart (as you can see by these interviews with Judge Napolitano and John Stossel). […]
[…] Johnson’s comments and questions showed that he was fully aware of the DC scam of fake spending cuts. And Sen. Ayotte was completely aware of the self-destructive impact of America’s worldwide […]
[…] last thing to emphasize is that Jared resorted to dishonest Washington math when discussing Obama’s make-believe budget cuts. When you use honest numbers, as i did when […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at […]
[…] Liberty / Govt. “Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy” and Why Peaceniks Should Oppose Democrats The Twistocracy Exposing Dishonest Washington Budget Math with John Stossel […]
I did not mean to convey an ad homonym attack. I wanted to convey my experience with my husband. I asked him to stand still and listen to what I thought was a well-reasoned argument, but he couldn’t get past the sound of it.
In a past job I found that older, well recompensed men could hear me better if I pitched my voice lower, I thought that Mr. Mitchell could benefit from my experience.
There was no disrespect intended. I’m sorry if the comment was badly made.
Wow, opponents of liberty provide nothing constructive. Clarence copies and pastes something from another source (written by someone barely literate); Katherine takes 4 sentences to complete an ad homenim attack on Dan’s voice; and J.R. contributes with a reference to John Stossel being assaulted almost 30 years ago during an interview. Nothing constructive whatsoever. Truth hurts, eh lefties? Your ideology is as bankrupt as character of your leaders.
I really enjoy your pithy commentary, but John Stossel is a moron. If you don’t believe me, ask him about a guy named Schultz.
Dear Sir,
I normally reserve my comments to the purely sycophantic, but I must digress.
Please pitch your voice lower. I wanted my husband to listen to your message, but he couldn’t get past your high pitched, nasally voice.
Lower your timber and increase your audience. Increase your Q-rating.
Clarence. I feel sorry for you. You are uninformed to the extent that one can only conclude you are a fool. Congratulations.
WRECKONOMICS II REV 7-12-10
COURTESY :WALL STREET OF AMERICA
LEADERSHIP VIA CONSERVATIVE POLICIES
THANKS TO RONALD REAGAN AND G W BUSH
From 1946 to 1980 the period was known as the GREAT MIDDLE CLASS YEARS
Each President worked to reduce the Debt from WWII.
In 1980 Debt was less than 1000 Billion and Government Spending was 600 Billion per year.
Reagan boastful Cut Taxes plus Cut the size of Government was a Trojan Horse, per his OMB Stockman, to cut Taxes for very rich.
Reagan was Governor for 8 years during which he increased Taxes on many items.
He increased the state revenues more than any predecessor.
By Far. Cutting Government? Ho Hum. Blarney Baloney once more.
Reagan policies increased Spending by 80% .
Debt by 186%.
9-30-81 Debt was $999.9 Billion and 9-30-89 at $1,859 Billion
Conservatives use Spin: It was Congress.
From 1930 to 1980 we spent $6066 Billion.
Reagan 8 Budgets totaled over $7000 Billion.
Congress? Ho Hum.
Blarney Baloney.
Congress returned Reagan 8 budgets for his signature with
fewer total dollars on them.
Haynes Johnson in “sleepwalking” said Reagan administration was “most scurrilous in history”
138 were investigated /charged/fined. More than total for all preceding Presidents in 20th century.
There were scandals in 27 Departments of the Federal Government.
Most involved money fraud.
The book “Ronald Reagan-There he goes again” documents over 300 incorrect statements by good old Ron.
Each President from 1945 reduced the Debt then came Spend-Borrow Reagan
to increase government by 80%.
THEN-Here comes GHW BUSH.
No braggart here. Nice Gentleman.
He increased Debt to $4411 Billion.
A 54% Increase.
Give him credit for increasing Tax on Rich due to out of control Deficits.
He had courage to put America first over ideology and party.
THEN-Pay your Way CLINTON ARRIVES
The Debt on 9-30-1993 was $4411 Billion.
The Debt on 9-30-01 was $5807 Billion.
An increase of $1396 or 31%
He ended with a surplus.
HERE comes old King of Spend-Borrow GW BUSH
Debt was $5807 Billion and on 9-30-09 it was $11,909 Billion.
105% increase.
Reagan-186%
Bush I-54%
Clinton-31%
Bush II-105%
Reagan-Bush I-Bush II did not pay down a penny of debt in 20 years
Those Three Famous Conservatives added $10,946 Billion to our Debt.
Three so called Famous “conservatives” promoted cut government
Up = Down to them.
INTEREST ON DEBT
9-30-81 to 9-30-09 we paid $8400 Billion in Interest.
87% Interest Paid on Debt incurred by the Famous 3.
Is it not possible(no) that without Reagan + Bush Tax Cuts we would enjoy a Surplus?
REDISTRIBUTION DOWN TO MIDDLE CLASS
Increase Unearned Income Tax to 40%. Make Gamblers pay.
Increase Top Income Tax Rate to 40%
Increase Estate Tax big time big time biggie
Eliminate Loopholes on Corporate profits—Set a Minimum
2008 -16% average payment-(top rate 35%)
In 2003 distribution of corporate profits by CBO report revealed
Bottom 80% of Income earners got 8%–Top 5% got 67%—Top 1% got 49%
2009 Tax Return of Exxon pays no tax on billions in profits. Wrong. Sad.
2007—Exxon paid no tax. Got a Refund.
2010—Exxon Profit 45 Billion. Let us see if pay a tax?
Renew Revenue Sharing to return cost to rich from middle class
Clarence Swinney
Political historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations.
Lifeaholics Of America — old n ugly but honest mad mad mad at Inequality in Amrica
Author-Lifeaholic-Work for a Life not just a Living—Workaholic to Lifeaholic
Author-forthcoming– title not decided—How Democrats created a Great Middle Class and Wall Street Rich Conservatives are determined to destroy it
Many Stats from 12-6-09 polidose.com article by John Lucia “The National Debt:Betrayal and Devastation
Comments and corrections welcome at
THE BUDGET CAN BE CUT ONLY , SIGNIFICANTLY, IN DEFENSE-SOCIAL SECURITY-MEDICARE-MEDICAID-INTEREST=80%
DEFENSE AND MEDICARE BIG WASTERS AND FRAUDERS.
YOU DO NOT MENTION REVENUE????????
WHY IS IT IGNORED? OH! WALL STREET PAYS YOUR SALARY?
BURN TAX BOOK–START ANEW–SINCE 1980, IT HAS BEEN A CHRISTMAS TREE FOR RICH-CORP. GOODIES
WE GET ENOUGH ADDED REVENUE TO HAVE A SURPLUS.
WHY ARE RANKED IN OECD AS FOLLOWS:
#2 LEAST TAXED—30% OF GDP IN FED STATE LOCAL TAXES
#2 IN LEAST TAXED CORPORATIONS–PAID 1.5% OF GDP( 11.5% TAX RATE)
#4 ON INEQUALITY–IN BOTTOM 5 IN 1980
SINCE 1980, WE BORROWED 14,000B INSTEAD OF TAXING WEALTH.
RICH BECAME ULTRA RICH. THANKS TAX CUTTERS.
STOP YOUR PANDERING TO THE RICH. GO FOR MIDDLE CLASS
BEFORE THE REVOLUTION