Homeless in Arizona

Government math???

They ask for a budget hike from $2 billion to $2.6 billion, and when the budget "only" goes up to $2.1 billion, they call that a $500 million "cut."

A lot of people love to call these government bureaucrats morons who can't do math, but the truth is they are not morons who can do math, but crooks who instead lie thru their teeth to get reelected.

If John Q, "Liar" Politician says he is going to raise spending by $100 million he will be booted out of office by the voters after they hear about it from the media.

On the other hand if John Q, "Liar" Politician lies and says he is going to cut spending by $500 million, he probably be reelected, and the public will never hear about how instead of cutting spending by $500 million he actually raised spending by $100 million.

Fire everybody in the DEA???

Fire everybody in the IRS???

And so the shrieking and hollering begin

And so the shrieking and hollering begin

Posted: Mar. 3, 2013 | 2:13 a.m.

You want proof that close proximity to government causes brain damage?

Democrats invented the sequester and President Barack Obama signed it into law. Bob Woodward writes for The Washington Post: "My extensive reporting for my book 'The Price of Politics' shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of (Jack) Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors. ... Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011."

Yet for two weeks now Mr. Obama has been wailing that these minimal federal "cuts" (Uncle Sam will actually spend more this year than last) - somehow imposed on him by the demonic powers of minority Republicans - will cause disaster. Why, on Tuesday, the White House announced the pending cuts had already forced them to release hundreds of illegal immigrants held in detention facilities - something the White House wanted to do anyway.

Look at the other things Mr. Obama warns the sequester will make him do. Determined to demonstrate that cutting the rate of government growth by a single iota can cause only misery, the administration says when the tiny 2 percent "cuts" kick in over at Homeland Security this week, the result will be staffing reductions among the blue-gloved airport goons, resulting in longer lines for passengers.

When anyone really interested in reducing debt and restoring our liberties would say, "You want spending cuts? OK, we're closing down the whole shebang. We're sick of running a police state, anyway. Starting this week, passengers can once again board planes carrying their firearms, the way they could through most of the 20th Century."

As it so happens, this policy isn't even debatable: It's required by the Second Amendment.

If Mr. Obama wants to claim these Draconian budget cuts are going to require him to slash "services," why not announce he's going to lay off the entire Drug Enforcement Administration, and stop putting people in prison for smoking or selling pot? Why not announce he's going to lay off the whole IRS, that no one should bother filing their taxes this April - taxes that cover only 40 percent of the federal budget, anyway?

He doesn't threaten those kinds of cuts because he knows people would be dancing in the streets.

- - -

"Education funding isn't a Democratic or Republican issue," asserts Ruben Murillo, president of the Clark County government teachers union. "Everyone agrees that more funding for education is needed."

No, we don't. Many of us would like to see the tax-funded schools closed entirely, so that education could again be a parental responsibility, as it was for the generation that produced George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin.

The schools aren't doing much good, anyway. Most of the products of these intellectually crippling youth propaganda camps can't file in alphabetical order, or even count change.

The teachers admit this. They now whine, "These kids are from broken homes; we get no help or support from the parents; what do you expect us to achieve under these conditions?"

Nothing. So end your coercion-based system.

"We cannot continue on this path," Mr. Murillo asserted in an op-ed published in Wednesday's Review-Journal. "Over the past five years, school district budgets have been cut by more than $800 million."

In fact, Victor Joecks, communications director for the Nevada Policy Research Institute, points out the educrats claim $500 million of those alleged "cuts" occurred in the Clark County School District, alone. Yet Mr. Joecks testified before the Legislature Feb. 22 that the school district's own numbers show their general fund budget was $2.091 billion in 2007-08, $2.161 billion in 2009-10 and $2.107 billion in 2012-13.

In other words, budget growth has been small and uneven, but the budget is up, not down. And it's certainly not down by $500 million over five years, which would put it at $1.591 billion today.

Instead, Mr. Murillo is using the usual trumped-up statist math: They ask for a budget hike from $2 billion to $2.6 billion, and when the budget "only" goes up to $2.1 billion, they call that a $500 million "cut."

"This information comes from a budget worksheet created by CCSD and formerly available on the district's website," Mr. Joecks testified. After NPRI published an article detailing this information, the worksheet was removed from the district site, he testified. So NPRI has re-posted it, themselves.

"If CCSD's budget hasn't been cut by $500 million, why is the district facing financial problems?" Mr. Joecks asked. "Because CCSD's labor costs - its largest expenditure - have been rapidly increasing. Between 2007 and 2011, CCSD's labor costs increased by nearly 20 percent. ... What these out-of-control spending increases reveal is Nevada's serious need for collective bargaining reforms."

The truth is, tax-funded Nevada school spending has been going up constantly, not only in total, but also per pupil.

"Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending in the last 50 years," wrote Andy Matthews, head of NPRI, responding last week to a similar call for more school spending from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "But that doesn't mean our kids aren't still harmed when politicians try, once again, to 'fix' education by dumping more money into a broken system.

"Even research from Nevada's Legislative Counsel Bureau has confirmed that as spending increased during the 2000s, Nevada's graduation rate plummeted," Mr. Matthews adds.

"We know what works: school choice. School choice raises test scores, increases graduation rates and saves money," he concludes. "No wonder politicians in the pockets of teacher unions oppose school choice so strongly."

Instead, the educrats squander cash on free meals and other social services that were never part of their original mandate, and now want to dragoon even 4- and 5-year-olds, wrestling them from their homes before parents can teach them anything about freedom.

The scaffolding of this entire dysfunctional enterprise nears collapse. And the last muffled cries as the dust settles will be "If only they'd given us more MONEY!"

Vin Suprynowicz is an editorial writer for the Review-Journal, and the author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.