Euphemisms, Part II

“Deficit-neutral”

As in: “Any health care plan that I sign into law must be deficit-neutral”

This one is *awesome* because when you say it, you sound fiscally conservative, but it allows you to continue on as a free-spending Marxist ideologue.

So what does it mean? Well, the health care bill is expected to cost between $900 billion and $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. How does one go about spending a trillion dollars without adding to the deficit?

1. Cut benefits. Barry says he can do most of this by cutting out the fraud and waste in the current system. It begs the question: why don’t we cut out the fraud and waste anyway, and leave the government tyranny part out and see where that gets us? But that’s a non sequitur when you’re busy hoping and changing.

Another way to lower costs in a health care plan is to stop caring about peoples’ health. For example, get a group of distinguished intellectuals to say that women don’t need to be tested for breast cancer anymore. That will save a lot of money.

2. Raise taxes. Steal property from people who have it and give it to people who don’t, and claim that it’s justified because you’re morally and intellectually superior to everybody else. You know how to “manage” everybody’s life better than they do.

Deficit-neutral is the new, politically convenient way of operating a tax-and-spend scheme without calling it tax-and-spend. To a liberal, it’s “responsible” to pay for their unnecessary, unwanted, illegal programs by raising taxes and rationing access to resources. Backward, bottom-feeding conservatives, on the other hand, think it’s irresponsible to pass unnecessary, unwanted, illegal programs in the first place.