Needed: An English-Democratic Party Dictionary?

by Lurita Doan

This past week in Washington, DC has seen the GOP actively engaged in discussions and strategizing about taking back the House of Representatives and taking back the Senate.  But before the GOP, Tea Party, or anyone else, can take back the House or Senate, they will face a more difficult and important battle–taking back our language.

bruegel-tower-of-babel-ruins-big

Democrats have made an art form of mis-speak, consistently showing only a passing familiarity with good, old Merriam-Webster.  Think Kafka and Orwell, where words are elastic, and plain-speaking is all but abandoned.

Understanding what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying is difficult; for, though the language may seem to be English, in reality, they speak a different language, the language of the Democrats in DC.  To understand exactly what they are saying, Americans need an “English –Democratic Party Dictionary.   Here is a sampler of some of the most important words and phrases that cause confusion:

  • INVESTMENT: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi frequently talk about the need for “investments”. For example, ” President Obama recently identified a need to invest in American infrastructure (and education)  What Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi really seem to mean when they talk about “investments” is that government needs to spend more.  Democrats  have learned from extensive polling that disguising calls for more government spending, and even greater national debt, are more palatable (to those that have not yet figured out the scam) if,  they talk about spending as  “investments”.  As most Americans know, making an investment  implies a return worthy of the risk.  Investors always want their money back and a profit to boot.  Fat chance of that!  According to the Democrat-version, “investments” are just spending by another name.  There will never be a return, and taxpayers putting their money are risk will never get their funds back, nor is there any chance of a decent return.

  • WORKING MAN: A favorite chestnut of Democrats, which really means Union Worker.   Lots of Democrats talk about being the Party of “the working man”, but what they are really saying is that we need to support Unions and Organized Labor.  Other Americans, that actually work very hard in a thousand different industries,  and especially entrepreneurs, and small  business owners, are not ever considered to be “working men or women”.  Sure they might work 90+ hours a week, to build their business, but that matters not at all.   Democrats support, and honor, only the unionized employee as a “working man or woman.   All other, hard working, Americans are an afterthought, and none merit much attention beyond how much more their taxes should be raised.
  • ENTITLEMENTS v. RIGHTS: When Democrats speak of “rights” most people mistakenly assume that they are talking about constitutional rights, that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, But, that is a big mistake, for Democrats, and Progressives, have so misused and bastardized the “rights” to portray their expansive vision of government ,and the many false promises of something for nothing.  For example, “it’s my right to have cheap healthcare.”  Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare identified as a “right“, nor is the concept even discussed.  Progressives also point out that, “it’s every American’s right to have a decent standard of living.”  Wrong again.  What Americans have been promised in our Constitution  is an equal  opportunity to pursue their own dreams and pursue happiness free of excessive government control .   Similarly, it is important to remember that Entitlement programs are not “rights” either.
  • JOB CREATION: Democrats in government  talk a lot about job creation and the urgent need for government to create more jobs. But, government does not create any jobs in the private sector, and the only jobs it does create are government jobs, that can only be funded and supported by additional taxes on those that do create jobs.
  • SHOVEL READY: Remember this one?  “Shovel Ready” projects were supposed to result in the immediate launch of any number of new construction projects, creating jobs across the country.  But that was a myth; very few “shovel ready” projects ever existed.  Instead, the vast majority of new construction projects were tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes;  scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting, are just a few of the obstacles that must be overcome before a project is “shovel ready.” Had President Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different  bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate.  Instead, the President merely called for more money to be placed into the maw of a process that grinds too slowly and at great expense to taxpayers. There are all sorts of infrastructure projects that could be made “Shovel Ready”, but that would require  dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.
  • CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Critical infrastructure  should be restricted to a very narrow definition– roads, bridges and buildings essential to continued or increased commerce of the nation.  But Dems in Congress have, in the Stimulus, expanded the definition to include water parks and studies of the Harvest Marsh Mouse.  According to this view, building new tennis courts, water parks, and stadium parking lots, (especially if they are targeted into their own districts) are all now labeled as “critical infrastructure”.  What Dems in Congress cannot, and will not, ever do is to actually prioritize the nation’s needs, and have the courage and leadership to decide which projects would provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole.  Instead, a “critical infrastructure” is defined as any building project, or any spending plan, that will bring federal funds to their home districts.
  • SPENDING CUTS / CUT TO THE BONE: Washington is always talking about “cutting to the bone”, but that is a fiction.  There is so much blubber in the budget that it’s been many a decade since Americans saw the “bones.”  When Dems use the term SPENDING Cuts — as in “we must reduce federal spending”, what is really meant is: let’s cut the amount of the increase to the budget line item.  Memo to Congress:  cutting an increase is not a budget cut.

Our country used to be one where a man, or woman, was bound by their word, and their word was their bond in  public and private transactions.  We are so long gone past that because, now, in the 111th Congress, words only means whatever the speaker wants them to mean.  Before we can solve a problem, we need to acknowledge the problem openly and with candor.  When we lose our language, we lose the power to change by civil discourse.  And, that bodes ill for all Americans.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted Feb 22nd 2010 at 8:57 am in Congress, Culture, Earmarks, Federal Spending, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, Tea Party, Uncategorized | 99 Comments