Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

The liberal press is at it again. As President Bush releases his FY 2005 budget requests the liberal press is adding a false charge of "record deficits" to their stories.

The Associated Press reported:

President Bush proposed a $2.4 trillion budget on Monday slicing scores of programs from prisons to arts education in the face of record federal deficits and the costs of war.

In another article Associated Press tries to whitewash the history of Federal deficit spending. It fails to adjust for inflation and completely leaves out the true record deficits of the WWII era (see below). Moreover, it fails to note the size of the budget and deficits relative to the size of the national economy.

Reuters used the same dichotomy in an article from their news service trying to claim that there was both a "record deficit" and 128 programs that would be "slashed". It is the ultimate in liberal propaganda: both a whine about fiscal irresponsibility while at the same time complaining about all the useful programs that would be "slashed" by a heartless Republican.

The extremist, left-wing Los Angeles Times continues the deception with yet another article proclaiming record deficits. Incredibly, the Times gives credence to a conspiracy theory put forth by a PR firm (!) wherein President Bush overestimates the deficit so he can look good later by "reducing" it.

The New York Times gets petty at a personal level, calling President Bush "Mr. Bush" throughout its article on the budget after an initial use of "President Bush". Apparently they are still not over the election of 2000. Of course, there is the obligatory article claiming record deficits. We can't have the liberal paper of record not pile on the President, can we?

Not to be outdone, MSNBC also weighs in with their own article claiming record deficits. At least MSNBC notes that it is Republicans who are truly concerned about spending.

Now, let's introduce some reality into this discussion.

The record deficit was set in 1943, during the height of World War II. The deficit that year was 30% of GDP and over 200% of Federal revenues. (You can find the historical tables for the Federal budget at the White House website.)

For a deficit to reach the same level now, it would have to be approximately $3.5 trillion (yes, trillion!) to be 30% of GDP—that is about seven times the estimated deficit for next year—or $3.8 trillion (again, trillion!) to be 200% of estimated Federal revenues.

The deficit for next year is certainly above average, but it is nowhere near a "record". Any questions?

The liberal press is adding a false charge of "record deficits" to their stories.

It fails to adjust for inflation and completely leaves out the true record deficits of the WWII era.

Apparently they are still not over the election of 2000.

The deficit for next year is certainly above average, but it is nowhere near a "record".