I was watching Neil Cavuto‘s show on Fox one afternoon, and the deficit numbers were released.

The White House went out and made a big deal about the deficit coming way, way down.

Let me give you the numbers, by the way. Since the 2003 tax cuts — and that is an appropriate starting point for this.

Since the 2003 tax cuts took effect, the deficit, despite what’s been spent on the war, despite the national disasters like Hurricane Katrina, despite the necessitated recovery after 9/11, despite all of the growing federal entitled programs.

Since 2003, when the tax cuts went into effect, the federal deficit has gone down by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars. In February of this year, the budget deficit for 2007, this year, was projected to be $244 billion.

The budget deficit is now just $163 billion. Now, it’s interesting, you say, “Just $163 billion.” That’s a lot of money, but it’s coming way, way down.

This is inarguable as to why. It is the tax cuts. They create jobs. They create more taxpayers. They create more economic activity, which leads to more taxing.

It works.

You get more people paying smaller rates of taxes, the small tax rates, or the reduced tax rates. They’re not small, but the reduced tax rates create incentive to continue to earn dollars. It’s the Wal-Mart strategy — and that really irritates the left when you do that. With so I’m watching Cavuto’s show, and he had one of these usual television debates on there. He had Al D’Amato speaking in favor of tax cuts, and he had some lady from the Democrat National Committee.

So D’Amato is making the case for tax cuts pretty well, and Cavuto goes to the lady. And the she says, “Well, there’s no way the president can take credit for this. There’s absolutely no way. The president has added to the debt, irresponsibly.”

Cavuto said, “Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The debt is a total different thing than the deficit. The national debt is the sum total of all the deficits in the history of the country. The deficit, the annual budget deficit is how much the government spends, how much more it spends than what it takes in, and it’s taking in a lot more than anybody projected, because nobody dynamically scores the effects of tax cuts.”

And the Democrat lady said, “If Bush were really responsible for all of this, then he wouldn’t have vetoed the health bill for children.”

It’s a total non-sequitur.

The lady knew she had nowhere to go, so she had to go get political and attack Bush for this attack they are making on the S-CHIP expansion.