Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
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?
|
Gosh Larry, you certainly won't generate a civil discussion on this Board by suggesting that anything "actively misleading" comes out of Washington. Or, you might get the response that it can't be a "lie" because it is predictive.
In my view, it misleading unless every single time you say the number you flash up the screen ("Not counting some number up to $50 billion (but probably less) for the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005.") Others would say its not misleading, because "everyone" knows the truth.
Also note that per the last numbers I heard -- the Bush administration's promise to cut the deficit "in half" by then was talking about cutting the projected deficit from $511 billion (FY 2004) to $364 billion. Math is Hard, but by the time you get down to the Assistant Secretary level there must be someone who can do sums.
So, yeah, its misleading, but I think that this is all within the standard range of political bullshit that one receives from most administrations.
S_A_M
