You’d think they’d be embarrassed to even attempt it, but no-o-o-o-o.
Back in early September, I posted on the widely criticized Bush Administration practice of issuing reports of overly low expectations with regards to the federal deficit, and then claiming the economy is actually improving when the true figure turns out slightly better.
And, well, here they go again:
Democrats are blaming President Bush for the record 2004 federal deficit of $413 billion, but Republicans say the figure shows that the economic and budget pictures are brightening.
The Treasury Department announced the figure Thursday, two weeks after the government’s 2004 budget year ended and just 19 days from an Election Day in which Bush’s economic and fiscal performance are pivotal issues.
The number easily surpassed the previous record in dollar terms, the revised $377 billion shortfall of 2003. It was the highest deficit since World War II when inflation is factored out.
Republicans emphasized that the figure was an improvement from earlier deficit projections. At the beginning of this year, the White House projected a $521 billion shortfall for 2004 and the Congressional Budget Office forecast a gap of $477 billion, though both lowered their forecasts as the year progressed. (emphasis mine)
The anyalysts who understand these things already predicted the administration was going to do precisely this. Are they just too busy with the campaign to bother trying to disguise this transparent spin? Incomprehensible.
I for one am happy that we are not running an eleventy zillion deficit as previously predicted by the Assocation of Made-Up Numbers.
This, of course, is the sweet smell of not-total failure. Something starts at a certain level in January 2001. The indicator then significantly deteriorates over the next couple of years. At the last minute, the indicator improves somewhat to be a little less shitty than it was during its nadir. This is cited as proof positive that a turned has corner or that the Administration’s policies and programs are working.
“Master of low expectations,” indeed.
Aren’t the CBO projections that you appear to be criticizing here as well the same projections everyone uses…especially when criticizing the Bush budgets?
And isn’t the CBO at least nominally non-partisan? I’m pretty sure Kerry referred to them as such.
So while you may have a case against the administration setting artificial expectations, it would seem you should give them credit for beating the CBO numbers.