Just a few weeks before the election, the mainstream media is gleefully reporting that the Bush economy is running a record budget defecit of $413 Billion. The only problem is that it isn't.

[Those idiotic Republicans] say the more important measure is that the 2004 shortfall was an estimated 3.6 percent the size of the economy, well below the worst-ever 6 percent figure set in 1983 under President Reagan.

Far be it for conservatives to actually understand the time value of money and the relevance of percentages.

Boortz put it into perspective back in July 2003:

Look at it this way. Let's say that your family spends $5,000 more than it makes in 2003. Is that bad? If you only make $25,000 year, it's bad. To eliminate your deficit you have to cut your spending by 20%. But what if your total income is $500,000? Then you only have to cut your spending by 1%. No big deal.

Compared to the overall size of the enormous federal budget, the deficit is actually quite small. Now, I'm not exactly pro-deficit, but I do understand that those that keep harping on the size of the budget shortfall without putting it into proper perspective are likely pushing a political agenda.