No, George W. Bush clearly is not a fiscal conservative, says Paul Krugman writing today in the NYTimes, the same day the Congressional Budget Office re-released it's 2004 budget deficit projections at $477 billion (and $2.4 trillion over the next decade). But, Krugman says, it's absurd to think the answer is to simply to cut spending on social programs.

In fact, the White House promised an "effective freeze" on non-defense, non-security spending on last Thursday, according to Reuters, although analysts say that could only net them about $8 billion. Only $469 billion to go. (In the best line of his piece, Krugman accuses Bush not of actually moving to reduce the deficit, but rather being "engaged in deficit reduction-related program activities.")

The problem, says Krugman, is not just spending, it's revenues. "Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see?," writes Krugman. "Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950."

Calling the focus on tax cuts and a de-emphasis on tax collections a "con," Krugman writes, "So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed."

So what's next? The administration and like-minded Republicans in Congress will "starve the beast" by cutting social programs they don't like or believe in, claiming it's the only way to reduce deficits. It's actually a clever, if nefarious, strategery. The question is, can any of the Democratic nominees articulate a plan to truly cut the deficit that also resonates with voters? (Maybe Ross Perot would let someone borrow his charts?)