<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Bush 'buried' critical report<BR>==============================<BR><BR>BBC
NEWS<BR>May 29, 2003<BR><BR>The Bush administration reportedly buried a report
<BR>commissioned by the US Treasury which predicted a <BR>budget deficit of over
$44,000bn and called for <BR>tax rises. In a front-page story Britain's
Financial <BR>Times said the report, which advocated tax rises, <BR>was left out
of February's budget report as the <BR>White House lobbied for $350bn in tax
cuts.<BR><BR>Those cuts, the opposite of what was reportedly<BR>recommended in
the Treasury study, were signed into law<BR>by President George W Bush on
Wednesday.<BR><BR>The newspaper said the study was "the most<BR>comprehensive
assessment of how the US government is at<BR>risk of being overwhelmed by the
'baby boom'<BR>generation's future healthcare and retirement costs".<BR><BR>"It
estimates that closing the gap would require the<BR>equivalent of an immediate
and permanent 66% across-<BR>the-board income tax increase," the FT
said.<BR><BR>The Bush administration has been heavily criticised for<BR>the tax
cuts - which came on top of a 10-year $1,650bn<BR>in tax cuts in 2001 - as the
US economy stagnates and<BR>unemployment rises.<BR><BR><BR>Reports
ignored<BR><BR>The FT reported that former Treasury Secretary Paul<BR>O'Neill,
who was sacked from the administration in<BR>December, commissioned the
paper.<BR><BR>Two leading US Treasury economists headed the study -<BR>Kent
Smetters, former Treasury deputy assistant<BR>secretary for economic policy, and
Jagdessh Gokhale, a<BR>Treasury consultant at the time.<BR><BR>In transcripts of
interviews with them published by the<BR>FT, they disagree over whether the
report was meant to<BR>be included in the budget report.<BR><BR>Mr Smetters said
the report was "never meant to be a<BR>Treasury study. It was meant to be some
internal<BR>thinking... on how to reform the budget".<BR><BR>He was contradicted
by Mr Gokhale.<BR><BR>"When we were conducting the study my impression
was<BR>that it was slated to appear (in the budget)," he said.<BR><BR>But Mr
Gokhale added that it had been common practise<BR>for US administrations to
ignore similar critical<BR>reports over the past decade.<BR><BR><BR>© BBC
MMIII<BR><BR><A
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2946552.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2946552.stm</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390392975&p=1012571727088">http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390392975&p=1012571727088</A><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>