Wash. Post reports without challenging Bush claim that military deficit spending post-9-11 was unavoidable
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article repeated the Bush administration's assertion that "increased spending on counterterrorism, national security and the military after the Sept. 11 attacks" was an "unavoidable" cause of the large budget deficits the administration has run up since 2001. In fact, much of that spending was for the United States' avoidable war in Iraq, which played no role in the 9-11 attacks.
The Washington Post repeated in a January 12 article the Bush administration's assertion that "increased spending on counterterrorism, national security and the military after the Sept. 11 attacks" was an "unavoidable" cause of the large budget deficits the administration has run up since 2001. In fact, much of the military spending after September 11, 2001, was for the avoidable war in Iraq, which played no role in the 9-11 attacks. Additionally, while the Post noted that the Bush tax cuts "contributed to the large deficits," it also repeated the administration's claim that increased spending on national security and defense -- and not the tax cuts -- was the "primary" cause of these deficits, and cited no evidence to the contrary. In fact, according to a September 2008 analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), notwithstanding the large expenditures on the war in Iraq, the Bush tax cuts have contributed even more to the administration's budget deficits since 2001 than has increased spending on the military and national security.
The September 2008 CBPP analysis found that 42 percent of the "fiscal deterioration" that has occurred under the Bush administration is a result of "tax cuts," compared with 40 percent that is due to "[i]ncreases in military and other security programs":
The federal budget is projected to run a $546 billion deficit in 2009, compared with the $710 billion surplus that budget experts projected for 2009 back when President Bush took office nearly eight years ago. This $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation's fiscal finances for 2009 can be seen by comparing estimates that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released this week with those that CBO released in January 2001.
[...]
The dominant factor in the unprecedented fiscal deterioration thus was not the performance of the economy. Nor was it increases in domestic programs. The key factors have been large tax cuts and increases in security-related programs. For fiscal 2009, some $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation's fiscal finances stems from policy actions, and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration. Increases in military and other security programs account for another 40 percent of the deterioration. [emphasis in original]
From the January 12 Washington Post article:
As achievements, Bush and his advisers point to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which many analysts credit for keeping the last recession mild, even as the cuts contributed to the large deficits that followed. Bush and other administration officials play down the role of the tax cuts in feeding the deficits, arguing instead that increased spending on counterterrorism, national security and the military after the Sept. 11 attacks was the primary, and unavoidable, cause.
I thought Iraq was off the budget.
You are correct, sir. but fact remains it is still money out of our pockets. It is like buying a model airplane without telling the wife.
BTW, that 710 billion projected surplus for the year 2009 predicted when Bush took office pre 9-11 is just fantasy nonsense with no relevence whatsoever.
What's the prediction for 2017?
I think somebody doesn't understand what a budget is. See, it's a PREDICTION, a prediction Bush missed by a million miles because he was too eager to wage war and give tax breaks to wealthy people, which is why the debt DOUBLED under Bush and only went up 25% under Clinton, who, like it or not, left Bush a surplus.
My prediction for 2017: Obama will be lucky to have balanced the budget, in light of having to clean up Chimpy's titanic mess.
Randy
Excellent point, bruce. The CBPP is playing their normal political shell game for the sake of partisan politics. Their budget report trumpeted by mmfa plays fast and loose with the facts...mixing projections and actual results.
Here's a little balance from the Tax Foundation in 2002:
-- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released its latest projections of federal budget surpluses/deficits for the fiscal years 2002 through 2012. As widely expected, CBO is now projecting a current year budget deficit of $157 billion. This is a dramatic change from CBO’s past projections of the FY2002 budget outlook, which have ranged over the past twenty months from a surplus of $405 billion to a small deficit of $21 billion.
CBO’s yet-again revised deficit projection should not come as a surprise. The fact of the matter is that, while drastic, such swings in fiscal projections are par for the course. Fiscal forecasting is fraught with difficulties. Margins of error of 50 percent or greater are typical. --
The CBPP...in a decidely partisan manner...picks their own starting and stopping dates...ignoring subsequent changes. Here's a little grist for the mill for those like CBPP who want to hang their hat on the CBO hat peg.
In March of 1997 the CBO predicted a budget deficit of -$188b for 2002...In March of 2002 they predicted a budget surplus of +5b for 2002...In August of 2002 they predicted a budget deficit of -157b for 2002.
Even Houdini couldn't have been as slippery with the numbers.
Actually, the CBO releases three projections - a conservative estimate, a middle of the road estimate, and a sunshine-and-roses estimate. Pundits on either side of the aisle can choose to use the estimate that fits closest with their own ideological bias. Typically, (and perhaps not surprisingly) the middle estimate tends to be pretty close to correct, barring unforeseen events like 9/11 or such.
...and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration.
Yea, but look at the tremendous economic growth that resulted from Bush's tax cuts... <sarcasm>
Haha! Shouldn't revenues be through the roof?
Has there ever been a nation that cut taxes in time of war, much less the number of times as has Bush? Do you think that might not have been such a good idea in the middle of what everyone (on both sides of the fence) knew would be a generational struggle?
I've never found any nation in history that cut taxes in a time of war except this one. And I've looked pretty hard.
Why shouldn't we cut taxes? You're forgetting all the money we got from Iraqi oil after we invaded. That was more than enough to pay for both wars and the tax cuts. Oh wait. That never happened did it?
The fact it was not planned well is the greatest cost. We are pying for a screw up plan ( remember Cheney was so proud of being paraded on tv proclaiming the troops are going to be greeted as liberators ? )
What a waste of money, the military budget should be reduced by at least a third.
all the military spending in the world would not have stopped 9-11. we simply needed a president like clinton who paid attention to, and held weekly meetings devoted to, counterterrorism. bush ignored a warning hand delivered by a cia specialist to the crawford ranch in august, 2001. i heard an excerpt of bush dismissing the concept of the "burdens of the office" at his press conference today. no ---t, sherlock. the idea that you paid attention to anything is laughable.
Mefirst, you're dead-on, but unfortunately we've got a good number of Americans who will only stop whining about their taxes long enough to cheer the shoveling of a few billion more into the military budget.
I heard some of Dennis Prager's show today, and he was working one of his themes, "The Feminization of America", which he attributes to "The Left".
It's all about some idea of lefties hatred of authority based on laziness or a lack of discipline, but it's pretty funny. I doubt many of his wannabe-macho male listeners see the irony in asserting their manliness by voting for a big strong man to keep them safe by sending other men & women to fight wars.
I have firmly believe that when a majority of Republicans open their mouth, they are lying! G.W., K.R. M.M. Sen. G. Voin. And they blame others. "El-Busto" just bought a 8.5 million house in Dallas, from his investments in oil, and military industrial complex. For the Truth read "Take it Back" by James Carville and Paul Begala. Then read the lastest book from Vincent Bugliosi "The Prosecution of George W. Bush"
Sad thing is that our children and grand chilgren to Great grand children will have to pay for "Bushis Greed". The Republican Attack Machine spent well over 100 million in trying to discredit Pres. Clinton! U.S. spent 10 plus million for seven years of investigation into Pres. Clinton, CLEARED him of all charges!! except one where it was between two adults. Kennth Starr broke more laws along with Newt Gingrich.
I am eager to see what happens after President Numbnuts leaves office. Will insiders finally spill the beans and expose the inner corruption of the Cheney Administration? Or, more likely, will the Media Whitewash continue to the point that Puddinhead George will be hailed as a foreign policy visionary who had the guts to make unpopular decisions? Will future generations even have a sense of the ineptitude and dishonesty of the man?
I see no signs that anyone in the Bush Administration will be held accountable for the lies that got us into Iraq. It seems that most "journalists" are content to ignore everything that happened before the "Surge".
...except one where it was between two adults. Kennth Starr broke more laws along with Newt Gingrich.
That "exept one" was kind of a big one. Lying under oath? And maybe I forgot, but what laws were Ken and Newt guilty of breaking again?
dave, I will agree that CLINTONshould have been procecuted for lying to congress and he should have been removed from office for it. Now tell me ,who's crimes are greater? BUSHES who lied about WMD'S and AL QUITA connections so he could launch an invasion of IRAQ, a country that presented a minimal threat, resulting in an unessisary war that has killed over 4000 of our people and wounded over 30,000, with no end in site, or CLINTONS, lying about cheating on his wife resulting in 0 deaths?