WASH POST EDITORIAL STAFF SUDDENLY "SHRILL"

This is a stinging editorial on the latest Bush budget farce.

THE BUSH administration's 2005 budget is a masterpiece of disingenuous blame-shifting, dishonest budgeting and irresponsible governing. The administration mildly terms the $521 billion deficit forecast this year "a legitimate subject of concern," but asserts that it has the problem well in hand: The deficit, it assures the country, will be cut in half by 2009. This isn't credible -- and even if it were, it wouldn't be an adequate answer to a problem far more serious than this administration acknowledges.

Having presided over record deficits, the administration now wants to claim credit if it manages to cut the bloated number in half. Imagine someone who's been piling on extra pounds at an alarming rate. Trimming his annual weight gain from 30 pounds this year to 15 pounds five years from now still leaves him fat -- and getting fatter. The goal shouldn't be to cut the deficit in half; it should be to remedy the gap between what the government is spending and what it is taking in. To keep running up these deficits is to stick future generations with a tab they won't be able to afford.

And it gets better from there.

Funny, you'd think that the Post editorial board suddenly got possessed by Krugman. Boy, this sounds familiar:

Of this year's $521 billion deficit, the tax cuts account for $272 billion. In 2009, when the administration projects that it will have cut the deficit to $239 billion, the tax cuts (assuming the administration wins the extension it demanded again yesterday) will cost $183 billion -- in other words, the lion's share of the projected shortfall.

But this low-ball estimate is a mirage. Like the 2005 budget, it doesn't take into account continuing costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. It fails to address the acknowledged problem of the alternative minimum tax, which was aimed at the wealthy but is sweeping in growing numbers of ordinary taxpayers. It doesn't fully fund the administration's long-term defense spending plans. A more accurate picture of the likely deficit in 2009 -- even assuming the administration manages to keep to its stated spending limits -- would put it more than $150 billion higher. And, of course, the surplus in government retirement accounts masks the true size of the shortfall: $501 billion in 2009, even under the administration's fuzzy math.

You know, between the oh-come-on responses to the new budget proposal and the State of the Union address, Bush's sagging polls, the admission of a lack of WMD in Iraq, and even the media grilling Scott McClellan on Bush's AWOL history, maybe we've reached a gimme-a-break critical mass of sorts regarding our administration. Things could be turning around...

UPDATE: Even Tom Friedman is in on the budget-bashing act.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Marshall's latest column in The Hill hits some similar notes.

Over the past month, there’s been a subtle but unmistakable shift in the public perceptions of President Bush. And not one for the better.

The evidence is in the worrisome new poll numbers and the oh-so-speedy effort to get out ahead of the calls for an Iraq inquiry. The press treatment is more sour. And a mix of unease and impatience is starting to emanate from Republican circles.

Some causes are obvious: The rush of approbation over the capture of Saddam Hussein has subsided. The economy, which looked to be on fire six weeks ago, now seems healthy but not remarkable. The WMD imbroglio is back in the headlines. And the sheer magnitude of the fiscal crisis facing the country is again on display.

But the president’s deeper problem stems from increasing doubts that his White House is — to employ an overused phrase — on the level, that every new proposal isn’t simply one more gambit for short-term political gain, regardless of the consequences.

What has helped turn the tide is a string of crass and clumsy political gambits ranging from the president’s immigration proposal to the now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t plan for a trip to Mars and the new brouhaha over budgetary shenanigans with the prescription drug plan.

What did these three political plays have in common?

Not one of them was well thought-out on its own terms, and none had much to do with the president’s political agenda.