I mean, Bush promised to cut the deficit in half in 2004. How did he do?

Before we bring Bush milk & cookies let us remember that the massive deficit is a problem of his own making. He inherited a pretty strong hand and proceeded to screw it up.

I should have been clearer. I intended to amplify what Dave Schuler was saying, not contradict it.

Alex, doesn't a larger deficit lead to a stronger dollar?

Seriously. I know it's SOP for the conservatives to say that a strong dollar requires spending and deficit control, but the economics says otherwise. So, if the goal is to get a strong dollar, we need higher interest rates, which means lots of borrowing.

Unless someone 'round here has a better explanation...

Only if you accept this administration's phony accounting by putting far too much (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) off budget.

If you'd read the other three sentences of his comment, you'd have your answer.

Only if you accept this administration's phony accounting by putting far too much (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) off budget. We have been increasing the actual amount of debt outstanding by over $500 billion every year since Bush's first budget.

I mean, Bush promised to cut the deficit in half in 2004. How did he do?

The budget deficit has gone from $413B (3.6% of GDP) in 2004 to $318B (2.6% of GDP) in 2005 to $248B (1.9% of GDP) in 2006 and even further to $162B (1.2% of GDP) in 2007.

Now at the time, the MSM and democrats (but I repeat my self) thought it could not be done. An example is from CNN.

Like a cowboy-boot wearing David Blaine, President Bush has promised to perform an amazing feat of prestidigitation: he's going to saw the whopping federal budget deficit in half in just five short years.

...

President Bush and members of his administration have promised to cut that deficit in half by 2009 -- by spurring faster economic growth that will lead to higher tax revenue, and by Bush's pledge to hold the line on spending.

But Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit

Now what is McCain's plan?

Bring The Budget To Balance By 2013

John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The near-term path to balance is built on three principles:

• Reasonable economic growth. Growth is an imperative – historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.

• Comprehensive spending controls. Bringing the budget to balance will require across-the-board scrutiny of spending and making tough choices on new spending proposals.

• Bi-partisanship in budget efforts. Much as the late 1990s witnessed bipartisan efforts to put the fiscal house in order, bi-partisan efforts will be the key to undoing the recent spending binge.

In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

So as a service for your readers. Can you please cite a source that thought that Bush's plan to cut the budget in half would work and thinks that McCain's plan to balance the budget won't?

Alex, the budget is already on a “decreasing trajectory”. That's not the problem. The problem is that too much is off-budget and the total projected expenditures exceed the total projected revenues by too much.

Agreed. When I think of reducing the deficit, I think of reducing it for ALL federal spending, not just what we conveniently call the "budget." We really ought to do is stop allowing "off-budget" accounting. How can we keep Social Security "off the budget" when we use payroll tax surpluses to pay for discretionary expenditures?

This is a bipartisan problem. Neither party has a monopoly on bad accounting.

Again, no arguments here.

While it’s true that a balanced budget probably isn’t possible in the next four years, getting the deficit back on a decreasing trajectory is an absolute necessity.

Alex, the budget is already on a “decreasing trajectory”. That's not the problem. The problem is that too much is off-budget and the total projected expenditures exceed the total projected revenues by too much.

This is a bipartisan problem. Neither party has a monopoly on bad accounting.

The sad fact is that it's easy to balance the budget as long as you're willing to take stuff that would bring you out of balance off-budget.