Vacation was great. I hunted turkeys — the feathered kind — most of last week. I also hunted mushrooms. I had more luck with the mushrooms than the gobblers.

When I got back to the office there were reams of strange mathematical models from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s team telling how her win in Pennsylvania changed everything. (It didn’t.) She still trails in delegate count and she and Barack Obama are still locked in a Democratic primary that is setting records for spending and mudslinging.

There also was news from Illinois that money is being withheld from the University of Illinois Cooperative Extension program. In addition, other state agencies are being threatened with the suspension of funds. The math gets fuzzy in this instance too because some of the funds that are in danger are not even close to running out in the 63 days remaining in the fiscal year.

Hunters use turkey calls to deceive amorous gobblers into thinking a hen is nearby. Politicians use fuzzy math to deceive people into believing a candidate is not in trouble, when she is. Or they try to convince people that department budgets are in danger of running out, when they’re not.

Hunters and politicians both use deception … but hunting is more enjoyable.

On the bright side, it’s not Monday any more. It’s warmer, too.

But it’s also deadline day to turn in tax forms — or pay any taxes and turn in paperwork for an extension.

National statisticians say the average taxpayers will get back about $2,400 this year. (Makes one wonder how much a government statistician earns and what kinds of wild stories and jokes they share around the water cooler. Or maybe it doesn’t.)

The $600 stimulus package checks will add to the supply of money people will have in their accounts within a month or two. An earlier national poll indicated that about half of respondents won’t spend their stimulus money on new purchases. They’ll pay down debt, pay utility payments, etc.

Rather than conduct a poll with limited reply options, readers are asked to send in comments on how they’ll use their money. These also could deal with whether there are many people getting that average return.

Or maybe there will be comments with His and Hers wish lists.

Steve Eighinger tells me "a percentage" of his money will go to his beloved Daylight Doughnuts.

Fellow bloggers at The Herald-Whig have trotted out some top 10 lists recently, so here’s my list of 10 politics-speak cliches that this nation would be better off without.

1. "They’re taking that out of context."

When a politician says a vote, a comment, political position is being taken out of context, what they really want is a do-over. Yes, it’s possible to haul out a partial quote that misrepresents a politician’s true intent, but you can tell when someone starts with the "out of context" comment that a long, convoluted story is coming. Real people say "that’s not true" and have quick, understandable explanations.

2. "My opponent says …"

Politicians have been counseled by consultants never to give the opposition any publicity. This includes a decision to never mention the opponent’s name. Get over it. Voters know the name. You know the opponent’s name. Use it.

3. "That was a slap in the face to …"

When politicians or action groups use this phrase, they’re trying to create a public stir, usually where none exists. If the average voter thought something was all that bad, there would be no reason for the spin doctors to get involved or hyperventilate about something being a slap in the face.

4. "All conservatives are …"

Generalizations like this are dumb. Not all conservatives believe the same things. There may be a general core of beliefs, but foggy terms like this are meant to mask true political discourse, not show it in sharp focus.

5. "All liberals are …"

Same as above. The label doesn’t explain what the speaker is talking about. If someone is a liberal when it comes to gun control or abortion, please mention those things. Sweeping statements don’t help the argument.

6. "The media …"

Just as the political labels above are imprecise, so are comments about the media. There is no single voice for the media. Newspapers, television and radio are very different mediums. Thousands of different reporters, editors, producers, commentators have different views on life and politics. But lots of politicians follow the simple rule of thumb: "When in doubt, blame the media. Just say they’re biased for the other side."

7. "This campaign is about the people …"

Or at least the people I hope will vote for me.

8. "I will not side with the special interests …"

What? Farmers are a special interest. So are school children. So are senior citizens. Are you saying you’ll never support anything that does not affect everyone?

9. "I don’t care what the polls say."

This is akin to a politician saying he likes getting voted out of office. There are going to be points of ideology that will not be compromised. That’s good. But politicians shouldn’t start off with a lie, saying they don’t care about polls. It would be better to say, "I won’t be a slave to the polls."

10. "I love this country."

So do we all. Politicians should not seek extra credit for love of country. The best of them will show this in ways that speak louder than words.

Illinois House members on Tuesday approved a plan that would allow Illinois voters to decide whether the state should have recall provisions for its top elected officials.

It may be a while before the proposal’s fate in the Illinois Senate is known. If it gets approved there, the electorate would probably approve the plan in November.

As mentioned in the stories about the recall plan, this campaign has been driven by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who remains unpopular and is blamed by many Illinois residents and lawmakers for causing gridlock or worse in state government.

Even if the plan is approved, Blagojevich would be in the last half of his second term in office, and the very individual whose antics led to the recall push would be on his way out even without a recall. But if voters approve the constitutional amendment, voter recalls would continue to be a possibility.

Illinois voters have always had the power to recall errant politicians — in election years. With this plan, the most vocal opponents could launch recall petition drives whenever they want.

Whether you like a politician or not, it’s easy to see how the system could be abused.

Recalling politicians from office is certainly a tempting concept, but it should be used only in exceptional cases. Wording of the amendment should set the bar high so this doesn’t become a frequently used and abused tool of partisan insiders.

And while I’m on the subject, I can’t resist mentioning the old saying about Illinois politicians.

"Some have two-year terms, some four years. Others might get five-to-10-year terms."

That’s Illinois politics.

Last year Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt pushed through a $350 million sell-off of assets from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority – MOHELA. Republicans in the Senate and House backed the plan which freed up money for construction on university campuses.

Several Democrats opposed the plan.

This week it became clear that MOHELA will not have the money to make a $5 million quarterly payment to the state. State Sen. Wes Shoemyer, D-Clarence, one of the most vocal opponents to the sell-off, said "I told you so" in his weekly column to goes to newspapers, supporters or civic leaders in Northeast Missouri.

Shoemyer notes that the national credit crisis has played a part. He also reports that MOHELA has laid off employees and suspended some of its student loan programs.

Republicans counter that MOHELA had only a small portion of the state’s student loans previous to this year – and similar funds elsewhere also have been hurt by the credit crisis and the downturn in stock markets.

Lawmakers tweaked MOHELA rules this week to help it originate some loans. No matter how that turns out, the Republicans and Democrats will see the situation differently.

Some students at Western High School in Barry recently were in a physical education class and, being teens, they got exuberant and crossed a line of good taste.

The class was holding an archery session. The first targets were balloons. Those who hit the targets were gratified with the popping of a balloon. But once the balloons were popped, some of the students put up pictures of Osama bin Laden, some other terrorists and eventually some U.S. presidential candidates.

When Principal Greg Lesan heard about the photographic targets, he put a stop to it. School district Superintendent Rodger Hannel said the class "got caught up in the moment," and school officials don’t condone what happened.

Students from that class say it was not a big deal, but they agree it made their PE class more fun … at least for a while.

Reports of the event confirm that archers targeted both Democrat and Republican presidential contenders.

While some people may see this as a redneck thing, it should be noted that these kids didn’t do any permanent damage to anyone. Politicians and political supporters who would never be accused of being rednecks do permanent damage to their opponents’ reputations every time they smear someone.

Too bad we don’t have any monitors who could end the baseless attacks as easily as school officials ended the Pike County misstep.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s office sent out a press release today calling for "sensible gun laws." He attended a rally focusing on the deaths of 21 students at Chicago public schools during the past year.

The governor called on legislators to reinstate a ban on assault weapons. People in the crowd cheered.

Yet none of the 21 shooting victims was killed with assault weapons. Petty crooks don’t pay $1,500 or more for weapons that cannot be concealed.

There was a national assault weapon ban in place for about 10 years. It began during the Clinton administration and ended several years ago. Almost no crimes were committed in the U.S. with military-style weapons before the ban, during the ban or since the ban. The ban also created a problem for lawmakers who tried to define an assault weapon and found that they also outlawed several firearms they had not intended to target.

Big cities certainly have public safety issues, yet many of the groups that don’t care about protecting the rights of gun owners fight tirelessly against giving law enforcement the technology that would let officers "see" who is carrying an illegally concealed firearm. (The U.S. military and homeland security already have systems that can spot weapons through use of thermal scans.)

Whatever a person’s views on firearms, it makes no sense to launch a public campaign to fix a problem by taking on something that’s not causing the problem.