When I hear the phrase “debt limit” I think, “the limit at which spending stops.”  But yet again, the politicians are trying to redefine the English language.  Instead of acting like adults and abiding by the rules we ourselves have put in place, we don’t really mean what we said we really meant.

When your average, smart family starts reaching the limits of their income, they either stop spending or re-prioritize their spending.  If you’re short on the mortgage by $50, you stop going out to eat or drop cable.  Or, if you don’t want to drop cable you find somewhere else to cut.  But you still reprioritize and make cuts as needed so you stay within your budget. 

But not Congress.  They look at the debt limit as something to argue about every few years to score political points.  And we are sick of it.

My plan to solve this manufactured crisis – call their bluff.  Do not raise the limit – instead immediately set about re-prioritizing existing spending.  All spending that is not essential AND not Constitutional should immediately be cut.  We don’t need research into cow flatulence or the penis size of gay men or any of the other insanely stupid things that liberals spend our money on.

We prioritize on commitments.  We make our debt payment, we pay our military, we send out the social security checks.  We also look at eliminating fraud in social security and Medicare.  And then we cut like we’ve never cut before – starting with Congress.  Before 1884, Congressman had no staff.  They started out with one clerk at taxpayer expense but in the last 120 years that has been raised to 18 staff for Representatives and even more for Senators, depending on the size of their state.  We could start by cutting their staff in half.  I’m sure they would cry and bawl on TV how this was going to make their jobs harder, but then they would see what it’s like for the rest of America when we have to make cuts in our business and home budgets.  And then we start cutting whole departments and agencies.

If we did this, and proved that we are serious about cutting spending, there would be no catastrophe, no crisis.  The problem is that everyone knows that it’s politics as usual. We will end up cut spending a token amount and raise the debt limit.  But over the next year or two, we as people will remain discontented and still increase government spending again and again and again and we’ll have to go through this whole dog and pony show all over again.  At some point, the national loan is going to be called and with no real budget and no real adults running the show, it is going to all come crashing down.

mor•al

ˈmɔr əl,ˈmɒr-[mawr-uh l, mor-] –adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

We all know liberals penchant for redefining what words mean.  Fifty years ago, gay meant happy, today it means debased sexual preferences.  Fifty years ago, choice meant the ability to choose between different options. Today, it means you are pro-abortion.  Fifty years ago, marriage meant the sacred union between a man and a woman who loved each other and wanted to start a family.  Today, to the left, it means nothing more than a gender-agnostic contract, between two or more people, by which you can extort money from the government and insurance companies.  Fifty years ago, free speech meant freedom of speech.  Today, free speech means you are free to say whatever you want, as long as it complies with current liberal thought.

And now they are at it again.  Apparently, Chuck “The Duck” Schumer (he’s such a quacker) is redefining what a whole bunch of words means.  Monday he said, of Eric Cantor’s plan to cut $350 billion from healthcare spending, “This approach is not balanced, it's not fair, it's not moral, and it will not be accepted. The proposal by Leader Cantor is very troubling.”

I don’t know which I find more troubling - that Schumer either doesn’t know what words mean, or that he’s purposefully in engaging in more redefinitions.  Let’s start with moral.  The definition is above.  He doesn’t think it’s moral to cut healthcare spending (and specifically $250 billion from medicare).  I don’t think it’s moral that the federal government has racked up over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a large portion of which is medicare promises.  According to a 2009 report by the National Center for Policy Analytics, unfunded medicare liabilities are in the $85 trillion range.  Is it moral to make financial promises that you can't possibly meet?

I also don’t think it’s moral that year after year, the Congress has no problem spending more money that they take in, with no plan to cut spending.  If your average American family or business went on the same kind of spending spree, they’d end up broke and filing for bankruptcy and have to work with the courts to come up with a payment plan and budget.  But liberals think it’s OK to continue to spend more money than is brought in.  Is it moral to spend more than you have and to pass that debt on to future generations?

And balanced?  Somebody slap Schumer up side his thick New Yorker head.  When fully half of Americans don’t even pay income taxes, how can he possibly hope to redefine balanced to mean what he wants it to mean?  We’re not that stupid.  As Florida Senator Marco Rubio said, “we don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers”.  Balance means everyone paying, not some paying more.  Is it moral for some to pay nothing whole expecting others to pay huge percentages of their income for the same services?

And lastly, fair.  We cannot allow them to redefine this word.  He doesn’t think it’s fair to expect everyone to pay?  What do they know of fair?  Is it fair that Democrats can break the law and get away it?  Rangel didn’t pay his taxes, Geithner didn’t pay his taxes, but if one of us tried not paying our taxes, we’d be in serious hot water with the IRS, yet these liberal clowns continue to earn a paycheck from the federal government. Is it fair that liberals in government  get one standard and everyone else gets another?

If you think everyone should pay fairly, and taxes shouldn’t be raised on those already paying the lion’s share, call your Congressman and tell them you like the old meaning of balanced, not Schumer’s.