Imagine the conversations some politicians must have had with their PR advisors. Recently. Over how they would attack the Trump budget proposals.

“These budget cuts are terrible.”

No sir (or Madam). You have to be bolder.

“All right.  These budget cuts will be harmful to many essential programs.”

Not bold enough. You have to draw blood.

“How about this: Children will die!”

Now you’ve got the idea, sir.  That is a good start.

Politicians and critics could save themselves time. They only need to dig out comments over the last 50 years.

Any time any budget called for less spending the critics claimed children would die. Old folks would starve. Patients would be turfed into the gutters. (After we scooped up the bodies of the children.) Whacked out welfare moms would be forced to sell their emaciated kids. Precious national parkland would become housing developments. Species would disappear.

If all the predictions came true we would have millions of deaths by now. Our robot cars would have to negotiate round carcasses heaped in our streets.

The melodrama is bad enough. Here is something worse. The politicians give us melodrama over something that is not really happening.  Or over distortions they create. To con you.

For example: TRUMP PROPOSES MASSIVE BUDGET CUTS FOR WASHINGTON.

You saw and heard the headlines. Hmmmmm. Washington spends $4 trillion today.  Trump proposes Washington spend $5.7 trillion in 2027. Does that sound like a massive cut to you?

TRUMP’S BUDGET SLASHES MEDICAID.   The barracuda critics shrieked that patients will die. Or starve. Or be deprived of whatever.

So let us study these wicked slashes. We now spend $378 billion a year on Medicaid. Trump proposes we spend $524 billion a year on Medicaid in 2027.

This is a cut?  Dear math teacher. You flunked me for saying 100 plus 50 equals a reduction. A cut. Turns out I was right. I could have been President!

Hey, don’t forget those starving kids.  That villain Trump will gut the Child Nutrition Programs. They are part of the Ag Department’s budget.

Whew! Vicious cuts. From $23 billion. Down to $34 billion. Over ten years. Yes.  Today we spend $23 billion. In 2027 we will spend 47 percent more.  Nasty cut.

Similar viciousness with the child and family support programs.  Over at Health and Human Services. They will get whacked with wicked cuts.  They will have to suffer through only a billion more in annual spending by 2027.  A 25 percent increase. Cuts like these will send a million kids to orphanages, for sure.

But, but, but… Trump is shrinking government. He will force Washington to abandon urgent needs of the people.  Right.  Today government spends about 20 percent of our GDP.  After the shrinking that Trump proposes? Washington will spend 19.9 percent of our GDP.  That won’t come for six years.  That will give us time to adjust to such a massive shrink.

It’s the politicians and critics who need a shrink. What accounts for such garbage from them? Dishonesty. Years ago politicians wrote budgets that locked in increases year after year. Way into the future.

Along comes a president who says “This budget was set twenty years ago. To go up eight percent per year.  How about we reduce the rate of growth to seven percent.”

Uhh, sir, this won’t fly.

“Why not? We will still increase spending. At a hefty rate. The spending will simply grow at a slower rate than before. But it will still grow.”

Won’t do, sir. When Nancy Pelosi hears this she’ll have a million kids in breadlines by the weekend.

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s handlers are advising her:  The term breadlines is no longer strong enough, ma’am.  Try guillotines.

“Okay. These cuts are equivalent to placing the necks of a million kids on the chopping block. Under the Trump guillotine.”

That has a nice ring to it, ma’am.

       From Tom…as in Morgan.           

       Find Tom on Facebook. You can write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com.