Two-deficit monte

If we devoted this blog to commentary on the daily transcripts of George Bush's utterances, we'd get nothing else done because once you start into one of this speeches, it's difficult to know when to stop. For the sake of brevity then, just one segment of his speech with a Q&A session in Charlotte NC today, although skipping over his comments on Abu Ghraib ("there was a full investigation over why something like that could have happened") is difficult. He was asked about the budget deficit, which is large and shows no signs of returning to the surpluses of the Clinton years:

There are two types of deficits that I want to describe to you. One is the current account deficit. It's the deficit that -- that we're on plan to cut in half by 2009. There's an interesting debate in Washington about how do you deal with a current account deficit? ...

I made the decision to cut taxes, as you know ... And our strategy has, I think, been proven by the numbers ... And no question, however, we've been running a deficit ... One reason we're running a deficit is because I'm going to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their job.

That's background for -- no question we have a current account deficit. I have submitted a budget that says we can cut it in half by 2009 ... And so the size of the pie was what we thought was necessary to achieve an objective. And so therefore, I'm confronted with a choice. I may not like the slices of the pie, but I like the size. And if I vetoed bills because of the slices but it met the size, what would happen during the next budget negotiations? They'd say, well, wait a minute, we hit your number, you vetoed the bills. How can we trust you in good faith?

The job of the President is to set a goal which is to reduce that deficit in half by 2009. And if people want me to be able to deal with slices of the pie, just give me the line-item veto. And I think that will help make sure that -- (Applause.)

Let me talk about another thing. I'm sorry -- this is a long answer to a very important question. I'm sorry I'm blowing on too much here, but the real deficit -- I'll get you in a minute -- the real deficit, another real deficit is the deficit inherent in Social Security and Medicare.

Apart from the bizarre discourse about pie, which he's done before, here's another question: how can any respectable economist attach his name to an Administration in which the budget deficit is described as having two parts: the "current account deficit" and the "real deficit"?

UPDATE 3 MAY: He does it again --

And so when you hear people talking about the budget, the current account deficit is important, it's really important.