"It turns out that $1.6 trillion of the “savings” Obama is anticipating are based on the surge in Iraq continuing for 10 more years"
Well lie might be a bit of an overstatement but this type of creative accounting can certainly be called dishonest! As Commentary Magazine reports - This has to be seen to be believed:"
This has to be seen to be believed: Representative Paul Ryan questioning Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag about the inflated war costs used by the Obama Administration. It turns out that $1.6 trillion of the “savings” Obama is anticipating are based on the surge in Iraq continuing for 10 more years — even though Obama has already announced all combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2010 and the Status of Forces Agreement is set for 2011. Orszag looks like a clown in his effort to respond.
This is, even by Washington standards, unusually dishonest. And coming from the administration of Barack Obama, who promised us “honest” accounting and made a big show of how much integrity and candor he would bring to his governing, this is astonishing. And it should be seen in the context of a man who made a huge deal about his so-called stimulus package being free of earmarks — even though he knew he was going to get, and would soon sign into law, a $400-plus billion appropriations bill, which includes around 9,000 earmarks.
No doubt you've heard President Obama repeatedly stress that his budget will reduce discretionary, non-defense spending as a percentage of America’s GDP. Although technically true, it's ineradicably misleading, and as for "fiscal responsibility.” I think NOT!
From Leader Boehner:
“This just a new recipe for cooking the books. Because the White House uses exceedingly rosy projections for future economic growth, the spending as a percentage of GDP will go down. It’s an accounting gimmick, not fiscal responsibility.” – Boehner Press Secretary Michael Steel