It’s no secret that Democrats and their media sycophants are apoplectic over $85 billion in sequestration cuts in spending, which aren’t even cuts in spending year over year, but merely reductions in the rate of projected growth.
Some of the hyperbolic statements being made, though, seem to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of simple arithmetic.
Take the case of radio talk-show host Ed Schultz. If you don’t believe me, listen to his on-air comments for yourself.
SCHULTZ: It's easy to say we gotta cut. We gotta cut! Let's just cut! Cut more! Hell, let's just cut everything! It's easy to do that. But when you start affecting jobs and you start affecting people's lives and you start affecting what people want, the people have to matter, OK? I mean, we have, we have to matter and the political element to all of this is, they want Obama to fail. Now you've got a budget of three and a half trillion dollars in this fiscal year. This will take $85 billion out of it. That's damn near a third.
CALLER: Drop in the bucket.
SCHULTZ: Drop in the bucket? Really?
SCHULTZ: OK, well, we can't have this conversation then, because you're not being honest to the facts. You can't take 30, you can't take 30 percent of operational money out and expect to have the same product. You can't do it! It's impossible!
Here's the math problem: The federal government is spending between between $3.5 trillion and $4 trillion. No one knows precisely because Democrats haven't created a budget since before the iPad was invented, if you can believe it.
Now substrate $85 billion from $3.5 trillion and you get a reduction of about 2 percent – not 30 percent and certainly not a third.
And, by the way, even the $85 billion is not correct, because nothing is actually being cut from current spending. What is being cut is planned growth in future spending.
If you agree Schultz is arithmetically challenged – or possibly just lying at the expense of looking ridiculous, check out what Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., had to say about the sequestration plan – one completely hatched by Barack Obama and the Democrats to begin with.
She said the supposed cut of $85 billion would create the loss of 170 million jobs.
"We don't need to be having something like sequestration that's going to cause these jobs losses, over 170 million jobs that could be lost – and so he (Obama) made it very clear he's not opposed to cuts, but cuts must be done over a long period of time and in a very planned way rather than this blunt cutting that will be done by sequestration," she said.
170 million jobs?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans currently working in full-time positions today is less than 140 million.
How does a country lose 170 million jobs when there are only 140 million to lose?
This woman has been serving in Congress for 22 years. How could she be so ignorant?
Worse yet, she serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services and is part of the House Democratic leadership, serving as a member of the Steering and Policy Committee.
It's one thing to employ scare tactics to arouse your constituents. But it's another thing to tell lies that are so easily exposed as utterly, off-the-charts ludicrous.
Why do they do these things?
Obviously, these stars of the so-called "progressive movement" are badly in need of remedial arithmetic. But there's more to it than that.
While some of them are just plain dumb – they are also irresponsible, disingenuous subversives who hate the concept of constitutionally limited government accountable to the people and the rule of law. And they will say whatever they feel like saying to make their points and scare their constituents – no matter how out of touch with reality it might be.