Washington Language in Action

Washington, D. C. July 26, 2009 (Comentary by eGrumps)

The gurus in Washington have, once again, found wondrous ways to confuse the issue by communicating with us, whom they believe to be the gullible American people, with rather strange choices of words. Words are our principal means of communication  and the Washington Press Corps seems to be suffering from laryngitis, not able to ask  questions about the meaning of some of the words. This is, however, nothing new and is hardly a fault which can be attributed to Obama’s administration – but, his is the party in power, so perhaps some questions should be asked.

1. President Obama, when commenting on le affair Gates, said he would have calibrated his words differently. Please – explain – what the heck does that mean – “calibrate”  words differently. Probably means he’s sorry he didn’t use a bigger caliber gun, or maybe a smaller caliber gun.

eGrumps award for the Most Creative Use of Language for 2009 (so far) to: Peter Orszag

2. Peter Orszag, the White House Director of the Budget, said:
     a. The House health care bill is “deficit neutral.” What is deficit neutral?  Is that like “surplus neutral?”  I think I know what he meant, but couldn’t it  have been said with a more clarity? (The Congressional Budget Office hardly says it is fiscally neutral, but what do they know.) Besides – I thought we were going to try to reduce the deficit.
      b. “That’s already baked into our fiscal trajectory.” Huh?
     c. “Bending the cost curve” Huh?

If  it is baked into the fiscal trajectory, was the cost curve bent before it went into the fiscal trajectory. Maybe it was only half-baked into the fiscal trajectory, thus allowing for future bending of the cost curve.  Don’t know. Perhaps someone should have asked what this meant. I know if he had used a larger caliber gun, the trajectory would have been different, but that’s only a semi-baked assumption.

Recent Entries

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.