Today's New York Times editorial, Faux Fiscal Discipline, makes an important point. As a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush boasted that, after accounting for inflation and population growth, he'd exercised fiscal displine as Governor of Texas. By his own standard, then, when "adjusted for inflation and population, Congress' proposed increases amount to zero." And yet he has seen fit to issue veto threats against every congressional spending bill that does not cut spending in real terms as much as he proposes. The editorial concludes: It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress's proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to. Director of fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities James Horney echoes that sentiment in today's San Francisco Chronicle. "My impression is that the White House decided quite awhile ago that it was in the president's political interest to have a confrontation with Congress over budget issues... that will play well with people currently supporting him, and stances that allow him to still be relevant." Let no one be fooled. President Bush's budget tantrum is calucalated to do more than distract the American public from his policy failures regarding Iraq, immigration, and social security reform. It is also an effort to obscure his record of fiscal irresponsibility, including driving up the national debt from $5.5 to $9 trillion -- a 40 percent increase -- in a mere six years.