When the Treasury Department closed the books on Fiscal year 2006 on Sept. 30, one number precipitated a furious round of back-slaps and high-fives in the halls of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget - $248 billion. President Bush had no compunction about expressing glee about the nearly quarter-trillion dollar federal budget deficit for FY2006. Unacknowledged by the president, of course, was the simple fact, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office, that "today's fiscal policy remains unsustainable." And in ignoring the reality of forecasts from all economic quarters, Mr. Bush continues to misconstrue the state of the economy and the fiscal health of the nation. Earlier this month, Bush gave his own unique characterization of the state of the deficit: In 2004, I made a promise to the American people, we would cut the federal budget deficit in half over five years. Today I'm pleased to report that we have achieved this goal, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.)...These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th. [sic] These numbers show that the budget deficit has been reduced to $248 billion and is down to just 1.9 percent of the economy...these budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work. The president failed to mention several key facts about current budget deficits that would have greatly changed the outlook. Firstly, the repeated mantra of "in half by 2009" leaves the impression that the reduction of the budget deficit by half is a benchmark on the way to eliminating budget deficits. This is a false impression. The president's FY2007 budget and recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates both project growing deficits after 2009. Secondly, the deficit number that Mr. Bush claims to have cut in half never materialized. This fact is absent in his pronouncements but starkly presented in OMB's Mid-Session Review: ...the President is on track to meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2008, a year ahead of schedule, from its projected 2004 peak of 4.5 percent of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual deficit for Fiscal year 2004 was significantly lower than the $521 billion the president has used as his benchmark. Using real figures, the deficit has actually been reduced by 40 percent, not "half" as the president promised. Trotting out an incomplete or outright imaginary set of budget numbers in support of his fiscal policies is not a new game for this president. President Bush and OMB have taken to the extreme the practice of inflating budget forecasts for the purpose of claiming budgetary victory when the actual deficit numbers turn out to be smaller. In 2005, the president's budget projected a $426 billion deficit; it turned out to be $318. Those numbers in 2006 were, respectively, $432 billion and $248 billion. The year-end budget figures are, of course, a favorite horse for the president to beat on the campaign stump. On Oct. 12, for instance, he told reporters: As a result of good fiscal policy in Washington, D.C., this economy is strong. And the best way to keep it there is to make the tax cuts we passed permanent. (Applause.)...You might remember the debate about the deficit -- [Democrats] go around the country saying, well, we got to solve the deficit and we need to raise taxes...It's amazing what happens when you cut taxes; the economy grows, you end up with more tax revenues. Again, the president comments are intentionally vague and exceedingly misleading. Numerous sources and analyses have concluded that any economic growth that results from tax cuts cover only a small fraction of their costs. The CBO, the Treasury Department, a former chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and the president's own budget all conclude, without exception, that tax cuts do not spur enough economic growth to pay for even a fraction of their cost. Those Democrats to whom Mr. Bush refers are certainly not alone in their assessment that tax cuts result in huge deficits over the long haul. The president conceals the fact that the surge in federal revenues this year didn't result from a sudden fattening of the pocketbooks of working Americans. Wages for working Americans have stagnated in the current recovery. The latest Census figures show that household income rose 1.1 percent from 2004 to 2005. In fact, this paltry increase, which was not large enough to cover the erosive affects of inflation, was the first time that real household income has risen at all since 1999. The CBO has indicated the "revenue surprise" this year that was partly responsible for the smaller deficit was mostly the result of an increase in corporate income tax payments. If President Bush's fiscal policies are meant to grow the economy, they are certainly not designed to ensure that working Americans share in the nation's prosperity. Economic growth (and contraction) is the result of countless factors that are mostly beyond the reach of federal fiscal policy. However, Bush insists on pointing to a growing economy following massive tax cuts as "proof that pro-growth economic policies work." If the president believes that his tax cuts are fueling the recent recovery, then he must also believe that his predecessor's tax increases are, in fact, a superior method of spurring economic growth. After President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, the economy continued to grow unabated for six and a half years at the brisk pace of 3.9 percent per year on average - far greater than growth under Bush.. Clinton's fiscal policies, unlike those of his successor, resulted in a budget surplus - a surplus which Bush promptly traded in for massive tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy and a return to deficits - this time record-setting. But the president is not the only actor who refuses to seriously confront the fiscal state of the nation. A dysfunctional Congress yet again failed to execute its most basic duty and pass the necessary spending bills to keep the government running for Fiscal year 2007, which began on Oct. 1. Congress's unwillingness to come to terms with the federal budget has been abetted by a lack of leadership from the White House. Unless the president changes his head-in-the-sand attitude toward the impending financial strains of a retiring Baby Boom generation and spiraling Medicare costs, he will continue to constrain the options available to policymakers for years to come. Bush's lack of concern betrays his desire to break a decades-long covenant between the federal government and working Americans to provide a minimum of security to the elderly. In addition to cutting off possible solutions to meeting impending obligations, the president, through deficit financing, has imposed an increased tax burden for generations to come. Deficit spending financed by loans is pushing the cost of current policies onto future generations. As recent analyses by Citizens for Tax Justice conclude, the increase debt burdens more than negate the tiny sums of money 99 percent of Americans received from the Bush tax cuts. Future generations will be forced to bear the burden of Bush's refusal to face the hard facts of prevailing, main-stream economic theory (and for that matter, of simple arithmetic). The start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 was greeted by a growing economy that is leaving behind most working Americans; a federal budget deficit that, by the admission of the president's own budget, is about to start ratcheting up again; a national debt on which annual interest payments (at $226 billion) are 25 percent of discretionary spending and nearly as large as the federal budget deficit itself. All of these factors are restricting the policy options available to lawmakers to deal with ballooning Medicare costs and possible long-term Social Security imbalances. Instead of exhibiting the leadership necessary to right the listing ship, Bush (and many in Congress) would prefer to tell fairytales about magical tax cuts and employ rhetorical sleights-of-hand to obscure unsuccessful and unsustainable fiscal policies.