When the president repeats his mantra "cut the deficit in half by 2009", one could reasonably assume that the downward trend in deficits would continue past 2009 - as if "half in 2009" was a milestone of sorts. But, au contraire! The "half in 2009" is not a just a milestone but a turning point - the point where deficits start growing again. It’s right there in black and white in the president’s FY2007 budget, but it’s starkly absent in his speech. From page 223 in the Analytical Perspectives document of the President's FY 2007 Budget: (click on image for expanded view)

This time from the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire - a great analysis of President Bush’s tax policies: Treasury long-run analyses of the effects of President Bush’s tax cuts “may ultimately” raise total national output of goods and services by 0.7%. [...]

As the spender-in-chief pats himself on the back for managing to shirk the deficit to the fourth largest in U.S. history (via ThinkProgress), let’s take a look at a few things: 1. The surge in tax receipts is the result of a growing economy. Economic expansion is not dependent on tax rates. In fact, President Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew at what most would call a "good" pace. If marginal tax rates are 1% or 99%, an expanding economy will result in increased revenues.

BNA (subscription required) is reporting that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has introduced an estate tax reform bill. Although not a full repeal and not as costly as Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) compromise, it would still cost $245 billion over ten years. Sen. Landrieu’s bill calls for a $5 million per-spouse exemption with a rate of 35 percent that would increase for estates worth more than $10 million.