Here’s the word for 2011: ‘Unwind’
Words matter to those of us who arrange them for a living. Amid the gusher of lists we see at each year’s end, I always take note of the various selections for Word of the Year.
“Austerity,” attempts at which sparked riots from the Acropolis to Big Ben, is Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s choice for 2010. The New Oxford American Dictionary went in a slangier direction with Sarah Palin’s unintentional coinage, “refudiate.” Edgiest of all, not surprisingly, is the online Urban Dictionary’s pick: “gate rape,” inspired by the feds’ new, more-invasive airport security measures.
But 2010 is nearly past. It’s time to look forward. And so, in the spirit of forecasting next year’s Heisman Trophy winner right after this year’s award ceremony, or placing way-early odds on the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee in the hours after the midterms, I offer this suggestion for semantic significance in ’11: “Unwind.”
The word could apply to a nation that’s been pretty tightly wound for a few years now. But I mean it mostly as a substitute for one of my fellow conservatives’ favorite words in nearly any year: “cut.”
Cut taxes, cut spending. Cut the deficit, cut the debt. Cut waste, cut pork, cut regulation. Cut, cut, cut.
Some of these uses are appropriate, if I do say so myself (a search of the AJC’s archives reveals I used the c-word in 26 of my 93 columns this year).
“Cut,” more than “unwind,” connotes the urgency we need in shrinking government. It also fits better on a bumper sticker, or in a tweet.
But as a precise description of the work ahead of us, “cut” doesn’t quite cut it. “Unwind” is a better way to think about attacking the tangle of federal programs, regulations, laws, loopholes and subsidies.
Oh, there are silly government expenses we could eliminate tomorrow with no ill effects. Take the millions Washington has spent on such study topics as male prostitutes in Vietnam and vague speech by American political candidates — both examples from “Wastebook 2010” by Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican.
And there are common-sense measures that ought to be taken in these dire budgetary times, such as a true freeze on all federal worker pay hikes.
But much of the rest is trickier. There are functions better suited for the state or local level, such as paying for transportation infrastructure, but which states and counties can’t afford to assume fully as long as Washington takes the lion’s share of tax money.
On that note, expect Democrats to carp loudly the next two years about “hypocritical” GOP spending — even as they know President Barack Obama’s veto pen would block the devolution of these functions, and a commensurate share of tax revenues, to the states. (Republicans should push for such a shift anyway, and make the White House defend the practice of spending Georgians’ gas-tax dollars on highways elsewhere.)
What’s more, the truly big-ticket items — entitlements — are very difficult to tackle swiftly. Dealing with programs that over time have morphed beyond their designs may be the best example of unwinding.
Even on tax reform, with the need to flatten and simplify the code — and then lower rates — unwinding is a more apt description of our priority.
If all this sounds more rhetorical than substantive, think again. Previous generations of leaders have allowed our problems to pile up for so long that our solutions must be timely, yes, but also precise and orderly. We cannot afford unintended consequences that undercut public support for unwinding big government.
So, here’s my resolution for 2011: Don’t just talk about cuts. Let’s be kind and unwind.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
115 comments Add your comment
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
9:52 am
Some of my fellow Independents who want more government dependence bewilder me at times.
Growing government only creates more government dependence, at the expense of individual liberty and prosperity. Innovation that creates and drives prosperity soon dies when the logical reason for being innovative is taken away.
A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is the government powerful enough to take all you have.
Port O'John
December 30th, 2010
9:53 am
I think a better word is “unhinged”– as in from reality.
Once again we see “conservatives” clamoring for cuts without specifics. I’ve never heard anyone here claim that we should abolish the military — but I’ve yet to see Kyle or any other “conservative” voice talk about getting defense costs under control. I know that conservatives want to deify him now — but George Bush oversaw the greatest growth in federal government in 30 years; it was Bush that treated the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq off the books. An accounting subterfuge designed to make conservatives believe that Bush was fiscally conservative.
Want to cut federal spending, reduce federal employees, cut services, eliminate federal pensions, reduce social security and medicare? OK. But what about military contractors and weapons systems that DoD doesn’t even want and don’t work? We can’t cut those because democratic and GOP congressman don’t want to lose jobs in their district. (And heaven forbid we do anything to reduce the grip of insurers over medical costs — even though insurers add 24% to the cost of health care. Doing that would violate our “free market” incentives to buy the health coverage (or not) that we want. Or worse yet, let’s not reduce any corporate welfare since that would hurt Congress’ favorite constituency: big bidness. I’m sure the Tea-Party types would claim that reducing government handouts to businesses, or making oil companies actually pay market rates for oil and gas leases would be socialism. We can’t have any of that here. After all, big business uses their govt handouts to create jobs; except they haven’t created any jobs lately but they are enjoying record profits. I’m sure that’s because the free market works so well.)
So, government employees are evil, lazy layabouts who need to go; but military contractor employees are vital to our national security and their jobs must be spared — even if that means we cannot adequately fund health care for returning vets.
Fair and balanced? Nope. Unhinged? You bet.
Put military spending and corporate welfare on the table along with social security, medicare and federal spending, and then take a hard-look at reducing the grip of the medical insurers over health costs, and that would be a worthwhile conversation. But since we have to keep military spending, corporate welfare and medical insurance profits out of the conversation (otherwise we’d be no better than Nazis or socialists)all we have is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Not So Casual Observer
December 30th, 2010
9:59 am
Bark and Ragnar,
So if I understand your proposal to “seize” all private pensions to solve the unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities – both problems created by Congressional spending – then you are Hillary Clinton socialists since this was proposed by HC during her husbands term as President.
You both sign on to creating another TAX to solve a Congresssional spending problem and essentially to h3ll with those who have planned for their future and contributed to their private plan.
I am adamantly opposed to seizing any private, legally operated businesses to solve problems created by Congress.
Intown
December 30th, 2010
10:05 am
Kyle: I think it’s safe to say, I agree with nothing you just wrote.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
10:13 am
Dear NotSo @ 9:59, while I would normally recoil at the idea of government seizure of private wealth, the fact is that the overlords have already done so, just on the installment plan. Our friend Bark seemingly introduces nothing new other than a little honesty in the discussion.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
10:21 am
More hot air from Kyle. Your definition of big government is to let big corporations do as they wish. Then when SH, blame the government (e.g. financial meltdown, BP oil wells). OK, let’s reduce the size of government. And how? Well, let’s cut spending. We can stop all the spending we want on those silly little grants. But what about the big spenders? Defense, Social Security, Medicare. Those are the white man’s programs. Without true cuts there, it’s meaningless. Bottom line Kyle, white people don’t want to take responsibility for when you de-regulate and cut popular social programs. And they pay you for this?
Not So Casual Observer
December 30th, 2010
10:23 am
Port O’…
No problem here with cutting DOD purchases the Branches do not need or desire but lay the blame where the blame belongs, at the feet of the Members of Congress who propose and pass the unwanted spending. The Left loves to quote their Georgia darling, Sam Nunn, but he was one of the worst offenders and there are many on both sides of the aisle.
Actually the “Free Market” does work very well but the Congressional thirst for power has not allowed a free market in this country in decades.
How are the oil companies the villains when the federal government takes a larger share of the cost, net, from a gallon of gas than the oil companies?
There is no such thing as “corporate welfare”.
No argument on the fake conservative G.W. Bush and his administration’s big government ways.
I have seen posts by the Left demanding the end of our DOD and this just lends credence to the idea the Left is unhinged. The Middle East could simply explode into war at any time Iran decides to attack the Sunni Muslims and the US will be involved. Be ready for a world-wide depression if Iran is left to act as an atomic bully.
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
10:23 am
Once again we see “conservatives” clamoring for cuts without specifics.
You’re overflowing Port O’John in need of servicing. Many specifics have been put forth and I have no problem put “everything” on the table. But can you and the other liberals stand losing government control? I seriously doubt it. We can cut the military budget, stop subsidies to corporations… oh can we include ending corporate taxes too? I bet you gotta a problem with that one don’t you? All take and no give?
Okay, I’ll be specific on one item to eliminate with a reasonable alternative, the U.S. postal service. FedEx and Ups can easily do the job and email is already replacing snail mail for the most part. The postal service lost over $8 billion this year.
Want another one? How about the federal department of education? Every state has a department/board of education, counties the same. The states really don’t need the feds to tell them what to do.
Not So Casual Observer
December 30th, 2010
10:39 am
Ragnar,
The problems we face are too many to list here, but there must be a step taken in the direction of balancing the budget – then follow that step with those required to achieve balance. The unfunded liabilities can be cured with a booming economy but not while the Congress and Administration continue to propose and pass spending in excess of income. No amount of taxation can cover the current deficits and the country can’t afford more debt.
IMHO the last few Administrations and the Congress have taken a path to destroy the dollar, and the country in the process, based upon their belief we do not understand the “complex” nature of governing. Bull hockey!
I submit the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and the provision protecting the owners from any loss as a result of operations, at Jekyll Island in 1915 was nothing more than the beginning of the end for the American way of life. The founding fathers wrote of the dangers of a central bank and fiat money and we are now seeing the truth of their warnings.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
10:40 am
If you really want to reduce the government ban progressive liberals.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
10:40 am
The last two blogs serve my point. More hot air from the right.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
10:43 am
Dear Port @ 9:53, how much more specific could I have been than at my posts at 9:38 and 9:49? Abolish now. The growth in the economy immediately thereafter would bring government revenues back to the pre-Obama levels. Then all we have to do is cut Federal spending back to pre-Obama levels.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
10:46 am
Hey Ragnar – why don’t we just wind the clock back to 1900? Who needs the FDA? If you get sick and die, just don’t patronize the product again. I can’t believe this stuff.
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
10:48 am
Hooey! It wouldn’t matter what anyone says on this blog, when it comes to reducing the size, scope and spending of government you liberals will not accept any of it, no matter how good the offered solutions might be. All you want and your only answer is more tax, more government control and more government spending. Which is what got us into this mess.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
10:48 am
Much of our problems have arrived from false claims by the left such as global warming and starving an oil based economy. China has no middle men like those in wall street so the Chinese can purchase the largest pool of oil cheaper. The rest of the world has to fight for the left overs. Thanks progressive liberals, you have done your part to keep the enonomy and America down. However, we see what you have done and now it is time to send you back into cracks from which you came.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
10:50 am
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
10:48 am
Compromise with liberals is for you to give up your values and beliefs and accept theirs. Not in my life time.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
10:50 am
Dear Darwin @ 10:46, FDA kills more people every year than it has saved in its entire history. Wipe it out.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
10:51 am
Dear Darwin @ 10:50, the SEC’s entire existence is based on a lie, that the stock market crash “caused” the Great Depression. Never stopped a criminal scheme in its entire existence.
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
10:52 am
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
10:50 am
You are absolutely correct!
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
10:52 am
Dear Darwin @ 10:50, EPA’s entire philosophy is based on the idea that one-size fits all regulations make sense for entirely different geographic regions and weather patterns. Typical leftism.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
10:52 am
“All you want and your only answer is more tax, more government control and more government spending. Which is what got us into this mess.” Take a pill you ease your illness. PLEASE.
george
December 30th, 2010
10:53 am
Lets let multinational corporations, big business run everything. Lets let the wealthy take care of the rest of us. I am sure they have the best interest of the average American at heart. No regulation, no government of the people, by the people and for the people. Lets make the profit motive our national value.
Jimmy62
December 30th, 2010
10:57 am
Port-O-John: There are so many things wrong with your screed, I don’t even know where to begin. So I will limit myself to saying that the Tea Party has railed against corporate bailouts and handouts over and over again. TARP, QE2, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Goldman Sachs… The Tea Party was against every single one of those things.
Here’s how the free market works: Companies do stupid things, and they fail. Then they have to go through bankruptcy court, reorganize if possible, and if not, then their creditors get in line in the legally determined order, and get as much as they are owed as possible.
Bailouts are big government, not small government, so it’s pretty obvious you don’t have a clue what the Tea Party is, you’ve just shoved your own ignorant thoughts on them.
Also, there are lots of specifics that have been mentioned over and over again by the Tea Party and right wingers about what should be cut, including in a number of comments on this column. You have chosen to ignore them and then say no specifics have been mentioned. Again, it’s obvious you aren’t trying to learn anything, you are just expressing your ignorance to everyone.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
10:57 am
If you right wingnuts keep it up, I’m going to start posting the deregulation accomplishments of Jimmy Carter and Alfred E. Kahn.
Jimmy62
December 30th, 2010
10:58 am
George: Please find where any Tea Partiers or conservatives have EVER said that there should be no government regulation.
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
11:01 am
Show me where any Tea Party Goers and Conservatives have EVER said ANYTHING specific?
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
11:06 am
Oh, it’s so easy to blog when you’re right (wing).
“While Americans are unhappy with the level of government spending, a new poll shows that recipients of popular and expensive programs don’t want their benefits cut and highlights the problems that lawmakers are facing in reducing the deficit. A Rasmussen poll released Wednesday showed that 63 percent of Americans receiving government aid “are not willing to consider any benefit reductions” in order to balance the budget. Of the people surveyed, 23 percent said they received government aid. Seniors and low-income Americans are the largest demographic groups receiving federal aid. The three major entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – take up a large portion of the annual budget and cutting any of them will be hugely unpopular with beneficiaries.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/27/reducing-government-benefits-unpopular-with-recipients/#ixzz19bz2KY90
barking frog
December 30th, 2010
11:17 am
Michael H. Smith
December 30th, 2010
10:48 am
————————————–
ditto for conservatives..
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
11:18 am
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
11:01 am
How many times must we tell you the same thing over and over. Oh, I forgot, liberals learn by incantations. That is how you got into global warming.
Kat
December 30th, 2010
11:24 am
The c-word is not “cut.” Just saying…
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
11:26 am
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
11:06 am
If you are giving me a million dollars I will take it, I may not deserve it (dependent liberals) but I will take it as long as you give it. If you stop giving it, I may complain but I will eventually accept the fact you are not going to give it to me anymore. Now a liberal would think it was an entitlement after the first gift and would demand the courts to continue the gift. As far as government control and regulations, all the conservatives I know want reasonable stewardship of the government and the planet. But next you will hear some liberal screaming lies and incantations because their purpose is to create a socialist government that will not survive. The sad part is that no matter how much education they have they can not see this. With all the world examples, the liberals remain blind. Democrats take back your party!
Jimmy62
December 30th, 2010
11:27 am
Darwin: Of course recipients of free money don’t want to lose it. That’s why we rail against entitlements, because once people are given free money, it’s near impossible to stop the flow.
I’m not going to bother to point out specifics to you, as there are plenty in both Kyle’s column, the comments on the column, various sites like reason.com and Tea Party websites, and plenty of other places. No one is going to write it down and put it in front of you, since you obviously aren’t willing to, for instance, use Google, to find the ridiculous number of times that conservatives and Tea Party folk have listed specifics.
The only solution from the left, as always, is to raise taxes. Got more?
Darwin
December 30th, 2010
11:45 am
Jimmy62: You are obviously oblivious to my posts. I just gave you a poll that said people don’t want their benefits cut. That’s why there’s no true distinction between political parties. The U.S. does not spend it’s money on programs that are not popular with the voting masses. It’s that simple. Google or not, it’s just hot air from you guys. Simply put. And BTW, the number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell to its lowest point in nearly two and a half years, a sign that the job market is slowly improving. I guess liberal policies do work. Oh that’s right, it would be improving anyway not matter what.
light on policy
December 30th, 2010
11:47 am
@ Joe…Union jobs only account for a mere 3% of the total US workforce..stop buying that garbage that you get from Faux News. Sadly, the U.S. has become a fascist nation where the military-industrial complex (Eisenhower warned against this) and corporations now run this country.
The recent Supreme Court decision that gave Corporations rights in Elections voted in favor by the activist judges, Alito and Roberts, is what will truly “unwind” this country and its political process.
14 POINTS OF FASCISM
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections
—Dr. Lawrence Britt, Political Scientist
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
12:28 pm
light on policy
December 30th, 2010
11:47 am
Now that is a column of mis-information if I ever read it. That is why progressive liberals have to be elected or fired from office. Dr. Lawrence Britt is a progressive liberal scientist who has a personal agenda. That is not a scientist unless you have re-written another definition. Unions count for only 3% of the workforce then why did they have such a huge impact on getting Obama and Reed elected. Go ask Dr Lawrence Britt.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
12:36 pm
“Trooper shooting suspect released 3 times this year over objections”
Read that article and see why we need to get progressive liberal judges out of office.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
12:37 pm
However is you killed a dog you would be serving 10 years.
JoeFann
December 30th, 2010
12:38 pm
The one thing that I think we can all agree on, is that, as a nation, we’re broke. While we disagree on how we got here, or how best to fix the problems, even a public school-educated bumpkin like me can see that we’re past the apex of the “civilization life expectancy” graph. If we don’t do something fairly dramatic, fairly quickly, it will only get worse–quickly. While I’m fiscally conservative and frequently vote that label, I’m fiercely independent. I don’t belong to a party, including the Ts, nor do I plan to. I’m not opposed a tax increase, but we SERIOUSLY need to get spending below receipts. I have very little confidence in the administration, Congress, or our state legislature making significant changes that will do anything to benefit America long-term, just themselves and their cronies. Our current two-party political system represents the two sides of the same coin. As long as we do the same things we’ve always done, we’ll get the same results we’ve always gotten. It’s time for us to fix our politicians stinkin’ thinkin’.
Don’t worry. I’m on it.
light on policy
December 30th, 2010
12:39 pm
Uh Willie…
He’s a “Political” Scientist. Do you even have a clue of what that is? Political science is not only the study of empirical data in politics but also the the processes, principles and behavior of political institutions
If you ever take the time to study the regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and Pinochet (Chile) then perhaps you would draw a different conclusion and stop labelling everyone with a differing opinion as a “liberal” (See #11 from the above list)
And for the last part of your miseducated statement perhaps you should ask why your political party makes such a big deal about the unions (See #3 and #10 from the above list)
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
December 30th, 2010
12:49 pm
Aahhh, specifics they are looking for-
The Rump Congress finally went home after slinging its last insults at our economy and our culture. And according to Gallup, 13 percent of Americans still think Congress is doing a very good job. Who are these people? They must be the ones the UN thought of when it proposed to appoint its first official ambassador to extraterrestrial beings. (If the House Repubs want to cut something out of the budget next year, how about starting with the $6 billion or so we pay the Turtle Bay crime family every year?)-AmSpec
What does the UN do anyway?
MrLiberty
December 30th, 2010
1:07 pm
Here are two better words for 2011 – Nullification and Depression.
The states need to step up to the plate and begin nullifying the unconstitutional laws passed by the Federal government. This mechanism was used successfully to help end the Fugitive Slave Act over 150 years ago and it can be used for good again today.
Next word is Depression – time to face our reality, This is no recession and things are not going to be getting any better anytime soon. Unless of course the states use Nullification to get us back on the right track.
A great phrase for the coming year should be END THE FED. If we could get everyone to demand this action of congress we would also be on the right track to possibly saving america before the Fed collapses the dollar.
Expatriation might have to be the word for 2012 if things keep going the way they are. If we can all still get out.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
1:13 pm
light on policy
December 30th, 2010
12:39 pm
You can call me George W, because you underestimated him also. Maybe you can tell me different but a scientist(unless you have changed the definition) does not include personal agendas into their decisions. The real scientist uses facts. Your professor may be correct in disecting fascism but relating it to free enterprise and corporations is a progressive liberal lie. I am a history buff so be care with your pedantry you may find yourself educated.
williebkind
December 30th, 2010
1:14 pm
Now let’s all go and jump on Jay!
A Hearty Cheese Sauce
December 30th, 2010
1:22 pm
EXTRA EXTRA!! ObaManure extends his Hawaiian vacation.
Sid Farcas
December 30th, 2010
1:30 pm
Dudley
December 29th, 2010
9:36 pm
I report.
You need to thank unions for the work conditions you have 40 hour week, safe work conditions, etc.
Gee, thanks Unions. Now go away so we can start competing around the world and companies will stop sending jobs over seas.
Sid Farcas
December 30th, 2010
1:31 pm
We would all extend our vacation to if someone else was paying for it.
A Hearty Cheese Sauce
December 30th, 2010
1:33 pm
The Eggheads screw up again…LOL…
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/#
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
1:34 pm
Dear Darwin @ 10:57, I salute Dr. Kahn.
I affirm that President Carter got 3.5 things right during his administration. (1) Deregulation of airline fares, (2) deregulation of trucking, and (3) deregulation of bank interest rates – all urged by the late and lamented Dr. Kahn – were unmitigated successes for that dismal administration. (I give him half a point for the Camp David accords. Even though there was no direct benefit to the US, it did bring peace to a corner of the world that had known only a generation of hot and cold wars.)
In contrast, after two years, the current occupant of the oval office has only one positive initiative, the surge in Afghanistan. I assign only one-half point because he took three months to make a no-brainer. So, by my analysis, Obama needs three points to tie the worst administration since Buchanan.
Sid Farcas
December 30th, 2010
1:38 pm
Ragnar, are you sure about Carter getting anything right? I would fact check that and see if maybe it was Ford or Nixon who came up with those ideas and Carter got them through on his watch. The guy was to stupid to come up with those fine ideas on his own.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
December 30th, 2010
1:40 pm
Dear Mr. Liberty @ 1:07, I wish you had run for governor, well argued.
Dear Willie @ 1:13, until I recognized the genius of Dick Morris I thought PoliSci was a faux science, like “climate science.” Somehow I suspect even Dick Morris would reject the leftist equation of various forms of totalitarianism with the governance philosophy espoused by small-government advocates. The leftist overlords have to manufacture such a false equation to justify their jackboot on the necks of the normal people.