Reality check on deficits came a few months too late

     Maybe I'm in the minority again, but why is everyone so shocked at the draconian requirements for reducing the deficit, as floated by the bipartisan Bowles/Simpson commission?
     My only complaint about the report is that it should have been out there for both sides of the political aisles to debate long BEFORE the elections -- before the primaries -- when the effect might have been to soften some of the rhetoric, especially from the Rabid Right.
     You want cuts in spending? Great; here's how it will affect you, and you, and you -- all of us, because everyone will have to give up something.
     We learn at the age of three that you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and yet we continue to fall for the sales pitches at election time.
     You can't cut taxes when you've already made the commitment to certain spending, any more than you can send the check back in the restaurant for a lower total after you've had your dinner.
      We can order less for the next meal. We can set lower limits on future choices, and reduce expectations. We can go on a diet, but everybody has to get enough to eat.
     The first time I ran for office, I was asked time and again if I would cut taxes. I said that I did not know enough about why we spent as much as we did, but it was obvious to me that we could not spend much less on education or emergency services, two of the most expensive items on the list. Prior to my second term, I said cutting taxes required less spending, and we were required to spend close to 85 percent of the budget, and that did not leave much room for cuts, especially as costs and needs and expectations continue to rise. The goal should be to know the difference between needs and wants, and then to manage resources wisely.
     I'm sure that answer did not please dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservatives, but I was being realistic. Voters appreciated a straight answer.
     Too many candidates promise more than they can deliver.  People want to believe that they can get more for less, and they are too willing to hear only what they want to hear. And there are always those who have no qualms about telling anybody what they want to hear if it means sealing the deal.
     Politicians like Palin and, yes, President Obama, are marketed like star quarterbacks or world series heroes, but the reality of serving in public office is that you are not the star player; your job is to be the referee, the umpire, or the ground crew ensuring a level playing field and safe conditions for the game.
     But enough of that kind of analogy; too many consider politics a game already.
     You get what you are willing to pay for. In a free election, all of us get what the majority agrees to pay for -- or we sacrifice what the majority is willing to give up. If there is no total agreement -- and there never is -- then you cannot have absolute representation, but you can have leadership.
     You still can't have your cake and eat it, too.