Sometimes, taking a look at Bush’s dissembling and deceptions is more frustrating than fun. Today is one of those days.
As Eugene Oregon noted this morning, Bush was in Michigan yesterday at a campaign rally in which he was asked a series of questions, nearly all of which were obvious set-ups. There was, however, one good question that Bush clearly wasn’t prepared for.
Question: Mr. President, my name’s Christine Van Landingham (phonetic) — and I have the privilege of working with 120 senior citizens in these three counties who volunteer as foster grandparents in our local schools, and each and every one of them, touching the hearts of many, many kids. What my question to you is, this year that program funding saw a cut in federal funding. How do you propose to support those programs, and more importantly, those volunteers?
Bush: Well, was it cut at the federal level? It was? Well, it’s what you get for trying to make sure the deficit gets cut in half.
This is one of those you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me kind of responses.
First, this isn’t what you get by trying to cut the deficit; it’s what you get when you dramatically cut taxes for millionaires.
Second, even if it were what Bush got by trying to cut the deficit, as Eugene noted, it’s a deficit that Bush created. When he took office, the deficit was gone and we enjoyed the largest surplus in American history. Despite promises to the contrary, Bush not only embraced deficits, he’s run the largest budget shortfalls in the history of the world.
Third, Bush seems to be deriding the notion of deficit reduction altogether. His answer suggests that “cutting the deficit in half” is a bad thing with negative consequences. This is a breathtaking reversal of months of rhetoric in which Bush held himself out as a model of responsibility for turning his own $500 billion deficits into still-enormous $250 billion deficits.
And finally, Bush isn’t even trying to cut the deficit in half, so this woman’s budget cuts, which apparently occurred in 2003, couldn’t possibly be attributed to deficit-reduction plans.
Bush’s so-called “plan” to cut the deficit, which isn’t scheduled to be implemented until 2005, intentionally ignores scores of new spending initiatives that Bush demands, including funding for Iraq, increased Defense budgets, Medicare expansion, and Social Security privatization. Moreover, Bush is also insisting that his irresponsible tax cuts be made permanent, which would make the deficit soar to unprecedented heights (or depths, as the case may be).
Bush clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. His handlers will have to do a much better job of weeding out actual substantive questions from real people for the rest of the campaign.