Word games | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    From now until the end of the year (and probably longer than that) we are going to be hearing more than we ever wanted to about budgeting, continuing resolutions, appropriations, and most disconcerting of all, the political mathematics used in getting from one to the other. If you pay any attention at all, you will learn that political mathematics don't resemble anything you were ever exposed to in school. The mechanics seem to be somewhat like what you were exposed to in school but the definitions are completely different - and therein lies the problem (or, perhaps better said, therein lies the lies)

    In order to help clarify what's about to happen, we need to define a few new terms. They aren't new words, but they are "new terms".

    Probably the most (mis)used term is "savings". In the normal world, "saving" means setting aside resources (usually money) rather than spending it. The result is "savings". So far so good; but here is where it starts to get interesting. "Saving" in the lexicon of politicians and bureaucrats is reducing the amount of money that was proposed to be spent. For example, the bureaucrats plan to spend, and ask for $100 dollars more than they had last year and the politicians appropriate only $80 dollars. This allows both the bureaucrats and the politicians to claim a $20 saving, even though they are spending more this year than last. (Of course the numbers they use are considerably larger than used in this example.) When they do this to us we are left with a spending plan that contains tons of "savings" but is never the less larger than the prior spending plan. Go figure.

    So it goes with the money being requested, but not with the money that the politicians and bureaucrats already have in hand.

    Money that the bureaucrats have in hand is money that (normally) must be spent before it "expires" (i.e. magically becomes unavailable for encumbering) at the end of the year. Now, here is another interesting twist in our lexicon. When the bureaucrats are unable (for whatever reason) to spend the money that has been appropriated for them by the Congress and it reverts to the treasury, it is almost invariably referred to as "savings". What they didn't spend is "savings". So how can that happen?? As the bureaucracy prepares to implement the program (whatever it is) they move into what is called by many, the "playing office" phase of program performance. They convene innumerable meetings to "scope" the program - even involving so called "stake holders" from time to time; they do studies; they revise the studies; they prepare environmental assessments, etc; the list goes on. Frequently the result of all this "office playing" is that the program for which the money was appropriated "slips" (i.e. the money doesn't get spent and must be returned to the treasury). It is virtually always called "savings". Go figure some more.

    So now we have two different definitions of savings. First it is money that we asked for and couldn't spend because we didn't get; and second it is the money we got but weren't able to spend because we spent too much time playing office and the funds "expired". No wonder people get confused.

    How about paying one's fair share?? Who among us knows what that means?? According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 38% of the taxes; the top 5% paid 58.7% of the taxes and the top 10% paid 69.9% of the taxes. Excepting Warren Buffett and Bill Gates from those figures, most of the rest of those folks likely already believe that they are already paying their fair share.. Presumably, in order for their contribution to be considered "fair" by the community organizer, they will have to pay more; how much more he doesn't seem to know, or be willing to say. The community organizer keeps talking about rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I suppose if he succeeds there would be virtually no chance in the world that the resulting tax increase could be called "the Obama tax increase."

    Also, it is a little difficult to accept the notion that the 46% or so of the public who already pay no income tax are paying their fair share of income tax. (Claims that they are paying their fair share because they pay social security taxes and sales taxes is nothing less than disingenuous.) Not only do they not pay any income tax, frequently they end up with a tax refund as the result of the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit or another of the tax credits that we lavish on them.

    Fair share seems to be a lot like savings in that it has at least two definitions. On the one hand, the folks who already pay the lion's share of the income taxes aren't paying their fair share, while the people who are currently paying no income tax (and in a lot of whom are even receiving a "tax refund" from the feds) are paying their fair share. How can that be?? Easy; the same way that not spending money that you never had can be considered a saving. (Think about that for a minute or two.)

    Prioritize. Prioritize is a word that has absolutely no meaning in the political arena. It is a useful word but has no practical application. It is useful when making speeches promising to be a good steward of the public's money. "I will review every line item on every page of the budget and ensure that only the highest priority items (and programs that work) are kept in the budget for funding." Now who was it that said that in 2008 when he was running for Prez?? One of the problems with the use of this term is that the standard against which the request will be measured is virtually never explained.. But even a bigger problem is that the promise is best honored in the breach. .The recent treatment by Harry Reid of the house passed legislation addressing FEMA funding is a perfect example. The legislation removed some so called "green" funding to help offset the cost of FEMA's activities in response to the Texas wildfires (which destroyed something on the order of 1500 homes) and Hurricane Irene which did it's share of damage up and down the east coast. He "shelved" the house passed relief legislation because of the "offsets" it contained. The money that the House wanted to divert was money for the same purposes as the half billion (yes, billion)dollars that was rushed out the door to Solyndra and disappeared into thin air. (Do you suppose that is the same thin air where Ben Bernanke gets all the money he has been printing?? Hmmm...) That would suggest that giving more taxpayer funds to companies like Solyndra is higher on Reid's priority list that helping those hurt by the fires and the hurricane. It almost sounds like a person who has no shame.

    D'ya think??