Via Bob Somerby, the Washington Post has a nice takedown of President Bush’s claims to have doubled economic aid to Latin America (which are similar to his bogus claims about cutting the deficit in half):

As President Bush arrived in Brazil on Thursday, he brought with him a message that he believes has been lost on the region: U.S. concerns about persistent poverty have prompted a doubling of economic aid to Latin America since 2001.

…To make the claim, however, Bush is relying on what some analysts called an accounting gimmick. In fact, they said, U.S. aid to Latin America has remained relatively stable since 2000. And the budget Bush sent to Congress last month proposed cutting aid from $1.6 billion to $1.47 billion, an 8 percent reduction.

…Administration officials acknowledge that they are cutting foreign direct assistance this year but said it still remains much higher than during the Clinton administration. “On a trend line, it’s a little bit lower than where it’s been over the past several years,” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr. told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. “But it’s still considerably higher than it was previously.”

…[The foreign aid offered by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez] may explain why Bush is so intent on calling attention to U.S. aid, telling interviewers and audiences that he has increased it from $860 million to $1.6 billion. “And yet we don’t get much credit for it,” Bush told CNN’s Spanish-language network. “And I want the taxpayers, I want the American people to get credit for their generosity in Central and South America.”

Analysts note that Bush is using a misleading base line, comparing this year’s figure with 2001, a year when Latin American aid was essentially cut in half temporarily to make up for a large military aid package for Colombia and five neighbors. Moreover, Bush never mentions in his comments that he just proposed cutting the figure he cites in next year’s budget.

“The total aid for 2000 was actually higher than the 2008 budget request because of the Plan Colombia supplemental, and in 2002 the amount of aid was about the same as it is now,” said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy in Washington. “So unfortunately, this change in rhetoric isn’t reflected in the budget.”