We’ve never had an honest budget and we likely never will.

The difference between Obama’s budget and Bush’s budgets is simply a change in the sign of dishonesty. Under Bush’s budgets, his administration consistently understated the expected amount of money being spent.

Obama swithed from analysis of current law to current policy to do the opposite: he overstates the expected amount of money being spent. The reason is simple: he can use these “savings” to fund other initiatives.

So, roughly, you see this debate every year that we “fix” the alternative minimum tax. Under Bush’s budgets, a “fix” would always reduce revenue. As such, Congress should have found a way to make up for the lost revenue although they never did. Under Obama’s budgets, the “fix” is already assumed. So there is no longer any discussion of the cost of the “fix.” There’s no need to find other ways to make up the lost revenue.

Essentially, Bush’s budgets guaranteed higher deficits. Obama’s budget allows him to pack in more spending without worrying about offsetting the costs or raising taxes.

So how is Obama’s budget dishonest? Because “current policy” can be completely fluid. For instance, Obama’s administration assumes that spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for anti-terrorism activities will remain at the amounts provided in 2008 all the way out to 2019. But his policy is to reduce our commitment — which should and will reduce the amount spent. He wants to use that money to fund some of his other initiatives without telling people that the initiatives will raise the deficit. That’s equally dishonest.