FIDDLING WITH THE BOOKS WHILE THE ECONOMY BURNS

Andrew Sullivan wants SOOOO much to believe, and the Repugs just won't let him:

BUSH AND MORAL VALUES: Here's a simple question: isn't it a matter of morals not to fiddle the books? The Bush administration has made some promising noises about reducing domestic spending in the last couple of months, but this news is not encouraging:

"To show that President Bush can fulfill his campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009, White House officials are preparing a budget that will assume a significant jump in revenues and omit the cost of major initiatives like overhauling Social Security. To make Mr. Bush's goal easier to reach, administration officials have decided to measure their progress against a $521 billion deficit they predicted last February rather than last year's actual shortfall of $413 billion. By starting with the outdated projection, Mr. Bush can say he has already reduced the shortfall by about $100 billion and claim victory if the deficit falls to just $260 billion."

How can anyone take this administration's fiscal intentions seriously when it engages in this kind of flim-flam? We're now used to the fact that the administration doesn't count the war in its fiscal calculations (what's a few hundred billion when it's other people's money?), but that doesn't make it any the less preposterous. And the strong case for partly privatizing social security is undermined by the president's inability to concede that it will require serious short-term borrowing. All of this is as much a moral failure as an economic one, which is why I'm still befuddled by the anemic conservative outrage. Or is sex the only area in which Republicans care about morality?

He's befuddled? Haven't the Repugs made that clear? "Are we clear?" "Crystal."