Perhaps some perspective.

… we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Hard to argue with.  Even the party dubbed as deficit hawks, Republicans, have voiced skittishness over the possibility of defense spending cuts should the plan potentially emanating from the so-called “super” committee not pass.

The sad reality is that very few politicians are willing to make the cuts that are necessary to correct our ever-increasing path toward staggering debt (not that we aren’t already there). And if they’re not willing to make those cuts, the only other option is to “increase revenues,” which is code for raising taxes – something that is even less politically palatable. Yet even raising taxes on the “rich” isn’t enough to put the government in the black.

It’s easy to point the finger at our politicians. But they are just doing what they think will get them reelected, which means in most cases avoiding making tough decisions that might offend their constituents. Truth be told, it’s the electorate that is to blame for our mounting debt and near refusal to seriously deal with it (note: part of the S&P reasoning was that the amounts agreed on in the recent debt-ceiling deal are not anywhere near enough to tackle our long-term debt problems). As long as we the voters are unwilling to give up our particular piece(s) of the pie the government spending-machine cooks up, we will continue to face mounting debt and further credit worries.

“But what about cutting waste, fraud and abuse?” you might ask. One man’s “waste” is another man’s “investment.” One man’s “fraud” is another man’s “tax credit.” And one man’s “abuse” is another man’s “grant” or “entitlement” or whatever other euphemism he may choose at any given moment to justify his looting of other people’s money.

We are all part of the problem. The sooner we realize that the better.

Here are a few facts on the issue straight from Planned Parenthood itself:

• Percent of Planned Parenthood revenue from government funding (FY 2008/2009) = 33% [source]
• Abortion as percentage of all Planned Parenthood services (FY 2008/2009) = 3% [source]
• Number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood every hour (2009) = 38 [source]

In short, some of the figures thrown around have been exaggerated while others not raised should be a little disturbing. However, two points should be raised.

First, the claim that Planned Parenthood can somehow totally prevent government funding from supporting its abortion services is a little misleading. Money is fungible, and subsidizing one service leaves more money for them to provide another.

The other point is that we have a serious debt problem in our country. Defending funding to groups like Planned Parenthood to the point to threaten a government shutdown displays a total disregard for the enormity of our fiscal woes. If politicians are not willing to cut small amounts of funding like this, they are clearly not responsible enough to tackle our budgetary problems.

At some point, we and our elected officials have to act like adults and start making the hard, but necessary, cuts required to restore our government to fiscal sanity. No matter what is cut, there will be cries of it being unfair and harmful to people. To choose to not cut subsidies simply because it will offend those being subsidized is a sure path to not cutting anything.

It’s time for us to grow up. If we don’t, we’re destined for fiscal collapse.

While you think about those issues, gaze upon this list of over 700 plans that have been granted waivers (Warning: It’s long!):

You made it all the way to the end. Congratulations! … I guess?

If they the support the program, they want to ‘invest’ government resources in it. If they oppose it, they call it “spending.”

Nothing really changes in the words (read: euphemisms) used in these speeches, just the mouths speaking them.

For more on government ‘investing’ in dubious programs it can’t afford to fund, click here.

It’s a tried and true tactic of politics to shut down opposition speech by demonizing those speaking. One variant of this tactic is to call the speakers racist. The variant used in the case of the Arizona shootings has been to demonize the speech itself as somehow leading to violence.

It’s a shame such a sad event has been twisted by some to score political points. But that’s the sad state affairs that is politics in an era when increased government intervention in our lives is the trend. As the amount of activities regulated by government increases, so does the amount of activities that become politicized. Now every event in our lives, including terrible events like this, are subject to partisan politicization.

May our prayers be with the victims and their families. And may our partisan attacks take a much-needed break.

1. Another TARP Spending Idea and Keynesian Economics (2/19)
2. Census Fine (3/19)
3. French Equality Veils Liberty (4/30)
4. Virginia Nullifies Individual Mandate (3/6)
5. GM Back in Business … the Campaign Funding Business (9/30)
6. Liberal/Progressive Ignorance of Economics (6/12)
7. Sinkholes and Optimism (1/16)
8. Paying for Spending Now Insignificant? (2/28)
9. Supreme Court Justice: Right to Burn Koran Not Settled (9/19)
10. Drinking Down Paternalism (3/10)

Have a Happy New Year!

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

                                      – Benjamin Franklin