CNN points out that this year's budget deficit is going to be below "last year's record". The problem is, last year's record wasn't a record at all.

The White House and most economists say the truest measure of the deficit is relative to the size of the economy. In those terms, the deficit measured 2.6 percent of gross domestic product. The 2004 deficit, by contrast, equaled 3.6 percent of GDP. That is well below the post-World War II worst-ever record, a 6 percent figure set in 1983 under President Reagan....

Of course you can't talk about "record" budget deficits, without harping on the mythical budget surplus under the Clinton administration.

Indeed, the deficit picture remains far worse than when President Bush took office in 2001, when both White House and congressional forecasters projected cumulative surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade. Then, the White House forecast a surplus for 2005 of $269 billion.

Those earlier estimates assumed the revenue boom fueled by the surging stock market and worker productivity gains would continue. But that bubble burst and a recession and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist assaults adversely affected the books.

Several rounds of tax cuts, including Bush's signature $1.35 trillion, 10-year 2001 tax cut also contributed to the return to deficits three years ago after four years of surpluses.

If it rains when the weatherman forecasts clear skies and lots of sun, you don't blame the weather for not doing what he said it was going to do. You fire the weatherman.

The surplus was never there. It was a forecast that depended on the stock market continuing to climb with no end in sight. They declared the Bear Market was dead when they should have been warning people about runaway P and Es.

As for the tax cut, it's primarily responsible for the mildness of the recession. Had Bush raised taxes like the Democrats and the media wanted, we'd likely still be chalking up economic losses. Bush proved that you can cut taxes and increase tax revenue. It's clear that the media either doesn't have a clue about economic growth or is deliberately lying to the American public.