I'm Just Not Sayin'

One of the things that drives me nuts (well, okay, Agnes would tell you it only requires a putt, not a drive, ha, ha) is the way our elected reprehensives make grand statements about what they're going to do, but never actually tell you how they're going to accomplish it. This is, of course, because the empty rhetoric they use to get elected is a good deal easier than coming up with the necessary (and often very unpopular) things that will have to be done to bring the promises about.

You may want to read this great article from Slate.com that I ran across the other day: "What We Talk About When We Talk About the Deficit: How Washington Avoids Having an 'Adult Conversation' About the Federal Budget." As author John Dickerson writes,

"Politicians in Washington like to talk about talking about the budget deficit. They acknowledge it. They emphasize the importance of talking about it. They suggest they have strong feelings about it. But when it comes to details, they get vague. Not since Bill Clinton's second term has there been a topic people talk about so much without wanting to be specific."

True enough. I think we all know that. Except for the politicians, and they know it, but know we'd never elect them if they told us the truth.

Anyhow, Mr Dickerson uses his article to summarize nine of the dodges most used by those we elect to avoid serious discussion of bringing down the deficit. Or, by extension, addressing almost any intractable problem. Here they are, in order from (as Mr Dickerson puts it), "from most embarrassing to most courageous," and with my inescapable commentary:

Diet Tomorrow: This one is the classic Congressional approach - simply propose new programs or major extensions of existing programs, but don't say how you'll pay for them. When pressed for specifics, tell the questioner, "I'll get back to you." You won't, and they'll forget.

The Blue Ribbon Duck: This one is my favorite, and nobody does it better than Congress. Call for a commission to study the problem, launch it with much fanfare, and let it die quietly because no one will ever remember it anyway. Should anyone ask about it, tell the questioner, "I'll get back to you." You won't, and they'll forget.

The Blue Ribbon Dodge: This one is actually an outgrowth of the Blue Ribbon Duck. In this one, though, you call for a commission to study the problem, launch it with much fanfare, and if it actually comes up with any suggestions, ignore them. If anyone asks about what happened to the recommendations, tell the questioner, "I'll get back to you." You won't, and they'll forget.

Spinach Some Day: This is actually the umbrella plan for avoiding tough decisions - simply look right into the TV camera and gravely state that it is necessary to cut wasteful and unnecessary programs (i.e., those that your party's lobbyists oppose). Then suggest no way to do so. When pressed for specifics, tell the questioner, "I'll get back to you." You won't, and they'll forget.

The Big Empty: Call for a balanced budget amendment or a spending cap, with no specifics about how to implement either. This is simply a variation on the Spinach Some Day ploy, and it's ingenious in its simplicity: you know Congress will never pass a balanced budget amendment, and if it did, it would simply legislate its way around it when necessary.

Fear: Run ad campaigns that use gloom-and-doom rhetoric to imply that any spending reductions or program terminations other than those you support will result in a complete and total shutdown of the government. Perhaps. But how would we notice? This is a traditionally Democratic approach, but is also used by Republicans to great effect (can you spell "death panels"?).

Lafferable: Declaring that the budget must be shrunk by spending cuts alone. This is a traditionally Republican approach that is very popular because it allows avoidance of any discussion of raising taxes while allowing focus on the termination of programs you don't like.

The Fish Story: You see this one all the time - empty suits making tiny cuts that address only a fraction of the problem, and then holding flashy press conferences to boast about them.

And finally,

The Young Adult: Now, we're getting somewhere. This approach is sort of the polar opposite of the Blue Ribbon Dodge, in that it supports the recommendations of the commission that make sense, even if they're politically unpalatable (or, worst case, politically suicidal). You don't see this one often, for obvious reasons.

Read the whole article and think about it. It will help you recognize - if not make sense of - the hot wind blowing from Congress.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo