Both Congress and President Bush have come up with their budget proposals and both sets of figures do the same thing – cut domestic programs that would assist the poor while extending tax cuts to rich people who need them the least. In other words, they are pulling a reverse Robin Hood by taking from the needy and giving to the greedy.

This is done under the guise that the federal government has gone on a “spending spree” and that domestic programs are the culprit. That might make for good propaganda, but it is far from the truth.

“Overall funding for defense, homeland security, and international affairs (which includes funding for post-war operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan) rose from 3.4 percent of the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] in 2001 to 4.2 of GDP in 2006,” an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes. “By contrast …funding for domestic discretionary programs shrank during this period, declining from 3.4 percent of GDP in 2002 to 3.1 percent in 2006.”

Bush is taking from heat, even from some moderate Republicans, for mismanaging the federal deficit.

When he took office, Bush inherited a record $236 billion surplus. By 2000, a $158 billion deficit had developed and the White House estimates that this year, the figure will reach $400 billion.

Some of the deficits can be attributed to Bush’s decision to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan. To a much lesser degree, there was also the unexpected federal expenditures associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But a large – and avoidable – reason the federal government is sinking deeper into the hole is because Congress and the Bush administration have enacted a series of tax cuts that favor the wealthy.

The president defends the tax cuts, the first to be enacted by a U.S. president during wartime.

“American families all across this country have benefited from the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains,” he said in a Jan. 6 speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. “Half of American households – that’s more than 50 million households – now have some investment in the stock market.”

As is often the case with politicians, it’s what is not said that you’d better examine.

“What this statistic ignores, however, is that nearly two-fifths of this stock is held in retirement accounts, such as 401 (k)s and IRAs,” the Center on Budget and Priorities points out. “This distinction is crucial, because capital gains and dividend income accruing inside these retirement accounts are not subject to taxation, and thus would not receive a tax benefit from the reduction in the tax rates on capital gains and dividend income.”

So what’s the real deal?

More than half – 54 percent – of all capital gains and dividend income go to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes of more than $1 million. By contrast, only 4 percent of this income reaches the 64 percent of households that have annual incomes of less than $50,000, according to the Center.

An analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center shows that tax legislation that has gone in effect since 2001 has exacerbated the gap between rich and poor. The middle fifth of households received an average after-tax reduction of $742 or 2.6 percent. Households with annual incomes of more than $1 million received an average reduction of $103,000 or 5.4 percent, more than double the rate for middle-class families.

Yet, Bush brags that “tax cuts are working” by reinvigorating the economy.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office disagrees. It observes: “…increases [in the revenue projections] occur mainly because of a rise in projected GDP, which derives from higher prices in the economy, not real economic activity.”

Finally, the wealthiest sector of the U.S. population is being showered with favoritism.

“Some of the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 are still being phased in,” stated the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “These taxes are heavily tilted to those at the top of the income scale. These tax cuts include the elimination of the tax on the nation’s largest estates, as well as two tax cuts that started to take effect on January 1, 2006 and will go almost entirely to high-income households.

“The Tax Policy Center reports that 97 percent of the tax cuts from these two measures will go to people with incomes above $200,000. As a result, the tax cuts ultimately will be even more skewed toward high-income households than they were in 2005.”

As usual, that leaves poor and middle-class citizens out in the cold.