Quote:
|
A Bush administration budget vow to cut the record $521 billion deficit in half by 2009 assumes higher tax revenues and restrained spending while excluding key areas sure to require hefty outlays, like Iraq.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/po...E-DEFICIT.html
On the one hand I guess the SOTU's promised deficit reduction wouldn't be much of a discussion point if it was based on some aggressive supply-side revenue projections. We could all make our usual statements and and snarky asides, etc etc, without getting very far into meat of the statement itself.
But if the admin is getting to that reduction number by simply ignoring the expected cost of reconstructing Iraq, is it too much to say that this statement in the SOTU was actively misleading? To use a meaningless cliche myself, isn't this Enron accounting?
