This time its the entire Congress and its half-truths on the deficit.
Bush claimed, in his Economic Report of the President, that his plan would cut the deficit in half over five years.
This month, the Republican-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House passed budget bills that make the same claim.
"The House on Thursday passed a $2.4-trillion budget for the 2005 fiscal year that Republicans say will cut the deficit in half by 2009, extend some tax cuts and increase spending on defense and homeland security.
"The House budget, like the Senate version passed this month, closely reflects President Bush's wishes" [House Passes Budget to Halve Deficit by 2009 LA Times 03/26/2004 subscription]
What none of them will tell us that this is technically true, but still a lie by omission.
First, the budget largely excludes the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, it doesn't include the effects of making the recent Bush tax cuts permanent. And it cuts the time of the projections in half.
Looking at the bigger picture, we find a different situation. On page 191 of the "Analytical Perspectives" in the Bush budget we read:
"Long-run budget projections show clearly that the [federal] budget is on an unsustainable path."
Here's what that says graphically:
The budget is projected to grow to more than 10% of the GDP (it's at 4.4% now). You can download the "Analytical Perspectives" (a couple of screens down, 2.2 MB pdf file) and check it all out for yourself.
Then let your Senator and House Representative know what you think of liars. Isn't it time to ground them?
Further reading:
And the 2004 award for creative fiction goes to...
"Sending jobs overseas helps U.S. ": more from our misleader
Article comments
1 - Winston Smith
Nice job Hal.
Jeez, these PEOPLE... It's like they are constitutionally incapable of telling the truth...
2 - Hal Pawluk
Except I'd say "extra-constitutionally" - what they're doing just can't be what the framers had in mind.
3 - Dan
I love the graph. It actually shows things looking good until about 2025 or so. Do you think that a projection that far in the future is dependable? The graph looks like something from a political cartoon.
Here is a truth: Tax cuts increase revenue. Not always. There is a point at which tax increases are the way to grow revenue. It's like a pendulum. But we're not at that point in the arc yet.
4 - Hal Pawluk
Here's the real truth: in the history of the Untied States, there is no statistical correlation between tax cuts and revenues.
Sometimes revenues do increase; sometimes they don't.
Now let's look at today's reality, rather than the taxes/revenues myth: this time, they don't.
5 - Hal Pawluk
"Untied" is fortuitous, but I meant "United" :-)
6 - Dan
"Here's the real truth: in the history of the Untied States, there is no statistical correlation between tax cuts and revenues.
Sometimes revenues do increase; sometimes they don't."
This ain't in agreement with your argument Hal. If revenue is unpredictably correlated with tax cuts or benign, then we might as well try em' and see what we get.
You just don't want to go so far as to say that tax cuts are statistically correlated to decrease revenue, (which would be a lie), so you just say that it is unproven, or that the increases in revenue were caused by external forces.
7 - Hal Pawluk
No, I said what I said and what I wanted to say.
This administration still lies and lies and lies.
8 - Shark
Brought to you by the same people who wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban deficits.
LIARS AND HYPOCRITES.
9 - Dan
"No, I said what I said and what I wanted to say."
Great, since you said the effects of tax cuts are: "Sometimes revenues do increase; sometimes they don't." then I can enjoy my extra $1000.00 refund in good conscience knowing there is no correlated effect on rising deficits. Kind of like free money!
10 - Hal Pawluk
"Kind of like free money!"
This post wasn't about taxes so I don't want ot go on and on about it here, but I do have to say that your logic simply doesn't exist.
Your refund is an expenditure that is included in the deficit by definition.
The lack of statistical correlation refers to the question of whether this contribution to the deficit (and your improved lifestyle) will or will not generate revenues to overcome that loss.
Is that the kind of fuzzy math that the White House is using?