I've been saying that news organizations like the Washington Post should spell out the budgetary impact of tax cut proposals. And, to the Post's credit, it has begun to do that. But I do have a bone to pick with today's article: It lets former President George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cut policies off the hook.

Here's the Post's lede and its only other explanation of the circumstances in place at the time:

The tax cuts at the heart of a fierce pre-election battle on Capitol Hill were designed when the economy was booming, the federal budget was in surplus and George W. Bush was campaigning for president on a promise to return the extra cash to taxpayers.

…

The budget outlook was far rosier when Bush conceived the cuts, which were one of the biggest tax reductions since World War II. Thanks to tax increases and robust economic growth, the Clinton administration had balanced the budget for the first time since the 1960s and was starting to pay down the national debt.

All of that is true, as far as it goes. But the impression it leaves is that nobody could have known the tax cuts would run up deficits. That isn't the case; plenty of people warned that the tax cuts could help cause significant deficits. Some of those warnings even made their way into the pages of the Washington Post. For example:

May 20, 2001: “Many Democrats who voted for Reagan's plan have since expressed regret for doing so. In their view, the 1981 tax cuts helped produce massive deficits that lasted for almost two decades -- deficits they say could return if Bush gets his way.”

February 8, 2001: “Fiscal conservatives in both parties have expressed concern about how Bush can accommodate both a $ 1.6 trillion tax cut and new spending initiatives without starving the rest of the budget or sending the nation back into deficit financing.”

And Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle warned, in a statement printed in the Post:

When you add the interest on the debt and all the other hidden costs, the true cost of the president's tax cut is well over $ 2 trillion. It will consume nearly all of the available surplus, at the expense of prescription drug coverage, education, defense and other critical priorities.

...

Worse still, the president's plan depends far too heavily on a 10-year budget estimate, which is no more reliable than a 10-year weather forecast. And there's no room for error.

Nobody's crystal ball is that good. Just ask Texas. Two years ago, using rosy forecasts, then-Governor Bush signed a budget that cut taxes by $ 1.8 billion. But his budget projections were wrong. And today, Texas faces a serious budget shortfall.

If his budget predictions now are as faulty as they were then, his tax cut would bring huge deficits, increase the national debt and put our economy back in the ditch.