"We're failing when it comes to controlling spending"
About this Quote
Graham’s line sounds like a budget hawk’s confession, but it’s also a carefully engineered piece of political fog. “We’re failing” uses the soft-focus pronoun that lets everyone share blame while no one owns the receipts. It’s contrition without a culprit, alarm without a plan. That’s the point: the sentence is meant to travel well on cable news, to signal fiscal seriousness while keeping the speaker’s hands free for the next vote that expands the very spending he’s lamenting.
The phrase “when it comes to controlling” is doing heavy lifting. It frames the problem as one of discipline, not priorities. “Controlling” suggests spending is a runaway animal rather than a set of choices made by lawmakers under pressure from donors, constituents, and party leadership. It also quietly shifts attention away from the awkward specifics: defense outlays, entitlements, tax cuts that shrink revenue, emergency packages that become permanent policy. By keeping the object vague, the quote invites every listener to plug in their own villain: welfare, foreign aid, the Pentagon, “bureaucrats.”
In context, Graham often toggles between deficit handwringing and national-security maximalism, a combination that turns “spending control” into a rhetorical badge rather than an agenda. The subtext is less about austerity than about permission: permission to demand cuts somewhere else, permission to posture as responsible, permission to avoid naming which programs would actually be cut and who would pay the political price.
The phrase “when it comes to controlling” is doing heavy lifting. It frames the problem as one of discipline, not priorities. “Controlling” suggests spending is a runaway animal rather than a set of choices made by lawmakers under pressure from donors, constituents, and party leadership. It also quietly shifts attention away from the awkward specifics: defense outlays, entitlements, tax cuts that shrink revenue, emergency packages that become permanent policy. By keeping the object vague, the quote invites every listener to plug in their own villain: welfare, foreign aid, the Pentagon, “bureaucrats.”
In context, Graham often toggles between deficit handwringing and national-security maximalism, a combination that turns “spending control” into a rhetorical badge rather than an agenda. The subtext is less about austerity than about permission: permission to demand cuts somewhere else, permission to posture as responsible, permission to avoid naming which programs would actually be cut and who would pay the political price.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Lindsey
Add to List
