An anything-but ‘balanced’ approach to the budget

Liberals in America trying to pretend they are middle-of-the-road like to say that for America to fix its unbalanced budget citizens must come together and be "reasonable" and "balanced".

A perfect of example of this is contained in Sunday's editorial in the Las Vegas Sun, which in part says:

"The real problem in Washington is the lack of acknowledgment by Tea Party Republicans that a balanced approach is needed to tackle many of the nation’s economic weaknesses. That means tackling the burgeoning deficit through sensible cuts developed over the long haul, with many of those reductions kicking in once the economy regains its footing. Additionally, our country’s tax code needs to be overhauled so it’s simpler, fairer and encourages businesses to hire. And such a strategy also requires making smart investments in our nation’s future — including spending that improves our infrastructure. It is imperative that lawmakers take such a reasonable approach because consumer and business confidence has been shattered."

When you tear apart that statement, what you get is something that is anything-but reasonable or balanced.

What liberals advocate is the smallest of cuts extended out over a generation, coupled with tax increases now with the net result of more real spending forever.

What we know about the Democrat (and too often Republican) approach to government is that the more you give Washington, the more Washington spends.

So, when editorials like the one above try to marginalize the so-called "Tea Party" approach (which is to cut real spending now) they actually advocate something that is in no way "balanced".

Don't be fooled by the poll-tested words like "balanced" or "reasonable".

The only budget question before us as a nation is whether we are going to cut real spending compared to last year or not. If you talk about "reasonable" cuts but mean an actual INCREASE in spending, you are anything-but reasonable or balanced.