After an excruciating delay, chickens are finally coming home to roost for George W. Bush. For over a year, critics have been pointing to the president's systematic misrepresentations of everything from Iraq to education to budget numbers. But the charge hasn't stuck, until very lately.
This past week, on multiple fronts, Bush hit a tipping point. Chief arms inspector David Kay testified to Congress that the Administation's intelligence reports were entirely wrong about Saddam's supposed weapons and that the much-maligned UN inspectors were right. Kay loyally blamed the failure on intelligence professionals, not Bush. But that argument didn't fool those who watched last year as Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld strong-armed the CIA, sifted through raw, unconfirmed reports and massaged the data until he got the story he wanted.
Bush initially resisted the pressure for a full-scale investigation, but soon agreed to appoint a major bi-partisan inquiry into the "intelligence failure." The real story here, however, is political manipulation of intelligence, and it isn't going away. A second investigation, of the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame, will also shed embarrassing light about the true White House concern for intelligence professionals. Yet another investigation, into the lapses that occurred on Bush's watch in the events leading up to 9/11, could also unearth awkward facts.
All of the administration's mendacity comes together in the latest Bush budget. According to the White House, the deficit, now $521 billion, will be halved over the next five years. But the administration achieves this sleight of hand by excluding future costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq, claiming large savings as yet to be identified, failing to adjust revemnue projections, and presuming program cuts so unpopular that Congress is sure to reject them.
Even as President Bush proposes making his 10-year tax cuts permanent, the budget addresses only the next five years. Deficits, of course, dramatically increase after year five. Even in the fifth year (fiscal year 2009) the budget leaves out about $160 billion in costs that the Administration itself favors and is expected to propose in future budgets, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Bush's Medicare calculations were also off by over $130 billion.
Social spending rises only 0.5 percent, (which means real, inflation-adjusted cuts), while military spending goes up 7 percent yearly and homeland security outlays nearly ten percent. The voters may well agree that we need these security outlays -- some Democrats want even more preparedness spending. But they may wonder why we had to trade tax cuts for the upper brackets for huge deficits and the slashing of popular programs. Some three-quarters of the fiscal deterioration since 2000 is caused by lost revenues.
In this budget, Bush offers a few tiny tokens -- more money to promote marriage, $23 million for drug testing in schools (while other drug outlays are cut), and a symbolic $100 million "compassion capital fund". But the compassion act is wearing thin.
Some conservatives have blamed the rising deficits on increases on social spending. But federal program spending, outside the Iraq buildup and increased outlays for homeland security, has grown at less than the rate of inflation. We had no choice but to spend more on homeland security, but the Iraq war, as we now know, was entirely optional (and needless.) Without the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war, the deficits would be well under two percent of GDP, and entirely manageable.
And despite the usual rosy characterizations, the latest economic growth numbers are disappointing. Four percent growth in the last quarter is not enough to generate very many good jobs. The Federal Reserve added insult to injury, at its latest meeting, hinting at interest-rate increases later in this election year--caused by rising deficits.
Even Bush's appalling Viet Nam record -- pulling strings to get into a National Guard unit, and then neglecting to show up much of the time -- is now belatedly attacting press scrutiny. What started as a gotcha game against General Wesley Clark's refusal to disavow Michael Moore's choice of rhetoric (Moore called Bush a "deserter") has refocused press attention onto the legitimate issue of Bush's actual performance.
Before the New Hampshire primary, Bush's re-election seemed assured. Now, polls show either Kerry or Edwards beating him.
Journalists are herd animals. Conventional wisdom sometimes turns on a dime, even though the basic facts were hidden in plain view all along. I'd bet we are about a week away from newsmagazine covers pronouncing "Bush in Trouble." It's about time.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. This story originally appeared on Wednesday in The Boston Globe.
