It's the language, Stupid!

Remember when the slogan was "It’s the economy, Stupid!"?  Well, it still is, but we’ve come to the conclusion that the economic situation is supported by the mutilation of the English language. Herewith, two or three examples.

The first applies very much both locally and nationally. The others are more frequently used at the federal level, but certainly contribute to all governmental fiscal problems.

The number one language problem locally is the substitution of the friendly word "invest" for the unfriendly word "spend" in particular cases.

Thus, maintaining libraries and parks are "expenditures" while committing to a debt of more than a billion dollars for a football field is an "investment."

Aid to public transportation for the average citizen is an unaffordable "expenditure" while subsidies of questionable multi-million dollar real estate ventures are "investments."

Supporting police and fire protection is an "expenditure" of public funds while paying a basketball team to play in a taxpayer built palace is an "investment."

Getting the picture?

The second example is somewhat related, but applies more readily at the federal level.  This one is based on the concept that everything you earn is really the property of the government.

This leads to applying the term "tax expenditure" to any governmental action which allows you to keep more of your earned income.  Any change in the tax code which reduces the amount government takes out of your paycheck is a "tax expenditure."  And we all question governmental "expenditures" - right?

In his press conference last evening, the president urgently referred to the need for "investment" in education, "investment" in infrastructure, "investment" in research, etc., etc.  And, of course, these "investments" are not compatible with additional "tax expenditures."

The third item, and possibly the most outrageous, is the use of the word "cut" as applied to governmental budgets.  This is a subject which needs the most intense scrutiny, particularly in the midst of the current debate about the need for federal budget cutting.

If a governmental agency has a budget of $1,000,000,000 and requests $1,500,000,000 for the following year, a reduction of the request to $1,250,000,000 is NOT a budget CUT.  All too often, we find reports in the media of precisely this kind of action, frequently quoting the agency head as to how it has been crippled by having the budget "slashed."

A "cut" means this agency should be looking at next year with $750,000,000 - or less - and any agreement which comes out of the current debate with a different approach will spell the doom of this economy.

Let’s try to simplify it.  Should a golfer admit he loves the game and is willing to "spend" $75-$100 on greens fees and cart, ingest some additional calories with a few beers, and expose himself to sun damage to the skin?  Or should he claim that this is an "investment" in his health? He’ll get exercise - getting in and out of the cart - that will work off 1 or 2 ounces of the additional beverage weight.  And a few bucks more on sun screen may prevent further expenditure on a visit to a dermatologist.  (The latter being a necessary expenditure probably caused by the unnecessary investment to begin with. That, of course, does not happen with governmental programs!)

When mis-use of our language is helping to lead us into economic disaster, isn’t it time we used that language with more honest attention to the real meaning of words?

Comments

[guy77money]

I agree one hundred percent!