Can't we Just Throw Him back Into the Swamp?

What the hell did we do to deserve the chimp? Really, if there is such a thing as karma, imagine what we all must have done in some past lives. Here are a couple thoughts on the budget that the White House sent up to Congress today.

First, we're screwed. I guess that really isn't news but every day, in every way, we get screweder.

At first glance, he would seem to have grounds for optimism. After all, surging tax revenue did come to Washington's rescue during the economic boom of the 1990's, pushing the budget from the red to the black. Republican and Democratic budget analysts, however, say that such an event is much less likely this time around. The contrasts are stark:

¶Through most of the 1990's, government spending grew at a snail's pace. But government spending soared during President Bush's first term and is expected to keep growing rapidly as the nation's baby boomers start to claim old-age benefits.

¶In the 1990's, the biggest jump in revenues came from high-income taxpayers who made enormous profits in the stock market bubble that ended in 2000. But Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced rates on the wealthiest taxpayers and cut in half the taxes on dividends and capital gains, making it all but impossible for revenues to rise at a substantially faster pace than economic growth.

¶Mr. Bush's own projections leave out the cost of rolling back the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that is expected to ensnare tens of millions of middle-income households as incomes rise with inflation. Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent such a trap, but a fix would cost roughly $500 billion over the next 10 years.

"I don't think we are likely to see a repeat of the 1990's," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office. "We can't grow our way out of this."

Nope, we're in a real fix largely because Bush shelled out big tax cuts to his friends.

"What's unrealistic is that they are trying to fund a government with today's demands on a 1950's stream of revenue," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a research group that advocates fiscal discipline by the government.

Tax revenues soared far beyond expectations during the economic boom and stock market bubble of the late 1990's, but budget analysts say there is little likelihood of repeating that feat in this decade.

One reason is that Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, the same people who accounted for the unexpected flood of tax revenue last time around. White House officials are already counting on tax revenues to surge by at least $200 billion this year, an increase of about 10 percent, and to climb more gradually after that.

These people are incredible. Really, their unmitigated selfishness is beyond the pale. But don't try to tell them.

While calling it the tightest budget of Bush's presidency, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) defended the spending blueprint against Democratic complaints that its austerity falls hardest on the poor.

"It's not something that we've done with a meat ax, nor are we suddenly turning our backs on the most needy people in our society," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday."

You did that a long time ago, Dick. Now let's talk about values.