W's deficit should be a primary point of criticism from here on out. He's bragging about his record and you can use his own evaluation of his record against him.
I mean, how can we protect the nation from terrorism if we're not going to be able to afford anything more than spitballs in a few years?
Check this quote out - 3/27/2001, Bush promised no deficit even with an early 90's like recession:
And we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001.
Even if the slowdown were to turn into a recession similar to that of 1990 and '91, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the 10-year surplus would shrink by only 2 percent, from a little more than $5.6 trillion to a little less than $5.5 trillion
Each year, Bush has lowered the level of fiscal responsibility he expects from himself. In all four budgets the WH has submitted, predictions for surplus/deficit for 2003-2006 are included. These come from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ In 2001, they predicted a $978 billion surplus, 2003-2006
In 2002, they predicted a $53 billion surplus, 2003-2006
In 2003, they predicted a $1.02
trillion deficit, 2003-2006
In 2004, they predicated a $1.8
trillion deficit, 2003-2006
"But," the independent voter thinks, "he can't be blamed - we have the deficit because of 9/11 and the accounting scandals, right?"
"Wrong!"
The word "terror" occurs a whopping 292 times in the 2003 budget and and goes through great pains to say the economic effect of the attacks are being considered. That was after the accounting scandals and stock market decline as well. In that budget, delivered February 2002, the White House predicted a measly $13 billion dollar deficit in 2004, and from there on out, we'd be into the black.
This administration cannot be trusted with our nation's finances. They have a record of four years of fiscal failure under their belt.