In the context of the whole conversation, whether or not Bush used slight of hand for future budget projections doesn't matter much, since the conversation was about comparing actual Bush deficits with projected Obama deficits.
Tim
This entire argument by the Left is nonsense. It wasn't "Bush" using slight of hand. It was a by-product of the way in which the appropriations were handled.
To accept the claim that it was Bush slight of hand, one has to establish that the war funding was done through supplementals in order to keep the funds off-budget. Yet, there was broad bipartisan support for the legislation -- FOR EXAMPLE, IN MAY, 2007, THE SENATE VOTED 80-14 to pass the war supplemental.
The true slight of hand is Obama's inclusion of these items in the budget, then calling a reduction of them "savings" over the coming ten years, when everyone presumed these amounts would decline anyway.
The war funding should not be off-budget after the first year, for sure. All Congress has to do is to say, "Hey, Bush, give us a budget that has the cost of the war already in it". Problem solved. But for some reason, they didn't want to do that. |
