To help guide us through negotiations over the federal budget deficit, the committee has invited Mr. Arbuthnot, the world's greatest cliché expert and a creation of the late Frank Sullivan of The New Yorker, to testify.
Mr. Chairman: Can you describe the federal deficit for us, Mr. Arbuthnot?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Unsustainable.
Q: Anything else?
A: Crushing. Massive. Unprecedented. Backbreaking. Structural.
Q: What are we doing by running deficits this high?
A: Mortgaging the future.
Q: Whose future?
A: Our children's and grandchildren's future.
Q: How high is the debt?
A: It's a mountain of debt.
Q: More precisely.
A: It's $13.8 trillion. It's $44,516.
Q: For whom?
A: For every man, woman and child.
Q: Where does this put us?
A: In the red.
Q: Red what?
A: Red ink.
Q: How much red ink?
A: Oceans of red ink.
Q: Where are these oceans?
A: On the national credit card.
Q: How did things get this bad?
A: Growth in federal spending.
Q: What kind of spending?
A: Reckless spending.
Q: What kind of growth?
A: Explosive growth. Skyrocketing growth. Unrestrained growth.
Q: Any particular area?
A: Entitlements.
Q: Who gets entitlements?
A: Our deserving seniors.
Q: When?
A: In their golden years.
Q: You're talking about Social Security.
A: No, it's the third rail. Plus, it's in a lockbox.
Q: Anybody else get entitlements?
A: Our heroic veterans. Family farmers who feed the world. Federal and military employees living off their (a) fat or (b) well-earned pensions. The (a) deserving poor or (b) able-bodied deadbeats who have turned the safety net into a hammock.
Q: You're an equal-opportunity cliché expert, aren't you Mr. Arbuthnot?
A: I'm straight as an arrow. Fair as a square.
Q: Aside from entitlements, what other kind of spending do we have?
A: Military spending and discretionary spending.
Q: Why isn't military spending discretionary?
A: Because we live in a dangerous world.
Q: So we're talking non-defense discretionary, aren't we?
A: Couldn't have said it better myself.
Q: What's included there?
A: Wasteful programs. Bloated programs. Wasteful, bloated programs.
Q: For which you recommend what?
A: Cutting the fat. Tightening the belt.
Q: Any comparisons come to mind?
A: Families have to live within their means, so why not Uncle Sam?
Q: By doing what?
A: Turning off the printing press.
Q: Anything else?
A: Sacrificing.
Q: What kind of sacrificing?
A: Shared sacrificing.
Q: Any exceptions?
A: Hard-working achievers at the top of the economic pyramid who fuel the engine of job growth and are entitled to reap the rewards of their success.
Q: Come again?
A: Fat cats.
Q: Where should you not balance the budget?
A: On the backs of the poor.
Q: Does that mean tax increases?
A: You mean "revenue enhancements." Only if they level the playing field.
Q: What do you bring to this debate, Mr. Arbuthnot?
A: A wealth of experience.
Q: In what.
A: Thinking.
Q: Thinking where?
A: Outside the box.
Q: Where is this box?
A: On the table. Everything is on the table.
Q: When will we have a resolution.
A: At the end of the day.
Q: Where are we now?
A: The bottom line.
Posts
4 comments:
Ha. Very good. Cheers Mike!!
ARGH!!
I thought the saying was the first thing to do is kill all lawyers..but that should be changed to politicians.
Standing outside a third-rail lockbox balanced on the backs of the poor at the end of the day brings you a wealth of experience - it reminds you of why it's better to be rich and powerful. I someday hope to know.
vw: dinersi - how you respond to a Mexican's question as to whether a particular building is, in fact, a short-order restaurant.
MM - It was a lot of reading but there is a lot of BS out there.
MD - Maybe we could do both.
B - I'll take the rich part.
Post a Comment