And a Republican Senator is calling him on it.
In a letter to the White House last week, Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio pointed out that Bush’s so-called deficit reducing budget is off by "hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars."
Voinovich said Bush’s 2009 budget proposal is based on keeping the Alternate Minimum Tax as is, and on cuts to Medicare physician reimbursements--neither of which is likely, and both of which Bush opposes.
A story in the Sunday Columbus Dispatch , January 13, 2008 (page A8, in the "D.C. Dispatches" column) said:
The Ohio Republican, the self-proclaimed "top debt hawk" in the Senate, said Bush's 2008 budget depended on billions of dollars in revenue that White House officials knew would never materialize.
Voinovich sent a letter to Bush telling him not to rely again on long-term revenue estimates that cut the deficit by using money from the alternative minimum tax or Medicare reimbursement cuts to physician payments. Voinovich said Bush has to know that Congress will ensure that a tax meant to hit only the richest Americans doesn't wind up affecting the middle class. Likewise, every year Congress forestalls the physician payment cuts, and both moves are backed by the administration.
"Previous budget submissions have included significant revenues from the AMT and significant savings from the current physician payment formula," Voinovich told Bush. "Yet, the administration has indicated support for repeal or reform of these policies -- changes that would add hundreds of billions (and perhaps trillions) of dollars to the national debt if not properly offset."
The article said Voinovich asked the President to develop an "honest and transparent budget" that deals with political realities. (Good luck with that.)
This is not the first time Voinovich has bumped his head on Bush the bubble. He is the same Senator who broke down in tears during John Bolton’s confirmation hearing, saying "I fear for my children. I fear for my grandchildren." (Yet Voinovich later reversed his opposition to the nomination. Go figure. I guess in the end, all Republicans eat their young.)
(So why is it Voinovich can see the light, and yet remain on the dark side? Is he so afraid of being called a "tax and spend Democrat" that he feels compelled to remain a "steal and squander Republican"? Grow some, George.)
A NOTE ON B.S.
Pardon my using the B.S. word, but that’s what Bush's budget is--a quibbling misdirecting mixture of lies and half-truths. "Technically" Bush's budget is true--IF two things that will never happen, happen.
In a similar way "the surge is working," "war on terror", "we must fight them over there...", "support the troops", etc. are "true"--in some alternate universe.
And I think B.S. is a meme we need to grab hold of.
I recall being surprised when on CSPAN (I think) last week someone pointed out that polls show people more bothered by B.S. than outright lies. Maybe it's because it is somehow more of a character issue. Or maybe it’s because you can’t believe a bullsh#tter even when he tells the truth.
In his book "On Bullshit," Princeton Professor Harry G. Frankfurt, explains the major difference between a liar and a B.S.er: A B.S.er is not just telling lies to cover some misdeed, he’s saying anything to get his way. A B.S.er doesn’t even care what’s true
How can we use this meme?
Example: On Bill Maher Friday night, Tony Snow dominated the show with a truckload of B.S. Rather than trying to refute each lying-point (only to be confronted with 10 more), maybe Maher could have at least given a final wrap-up:
Tony, you are not even lying. You are b#llshitting. That means we can’t believe you even when you tell the truth, because everything that comes out of your mouth is a spinning bull paddy. And there is no way we can extricate ourselves from the quicksand manure pile of your "gotcha" quibbles.