Obama's Budget and Deficits...Not an Ideologue?

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the budgetary and tax policies of President Obama. A story in the New York Times almost seems to stand aghast, mouth agape, shaking it's head at the reality being made by the idealism of Obama.

I know, I know, at the recent Republican retreat that Obama visited, he claimed he was not an ideologue, but that claim does not hold water when held against the reality of his actions, and the stated beliefs behind those actions.

So what then is the grand revelation of the New York Times that has it writing in such a tone?

By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water. - New York Times

But wait, we were supposed to pay for much of this budget with the revenue from Cap & Trade laws, right? I mean, the idea is that the country will make money off of environmentally friendly ways of generating energy, and no longer have to rely on the evils of oil...

Well, not really. It seems that plan of the Obama Administration has now been reversed. In a story from Reuters, the new budget drops projected revenues from emissions permit trading and auctioning. In fact, the Administration doesn't include any new carbon taxes. In a comment by Evan Ard from Evolution Markets, a carbon and energy broker based in New York, "The idea is to set a target for reducing emissions and setting up a program that hopefully allows you to do it at low cost; it's not about generating revenue." - Reuters

It's not about generating revenue? If the taxes from buying gas and oil only went into highway and road upkeep, the I35 Mississippi Bridge in Minnesota would have never collapsed.

Not about revenue...

It's ALL about revenue. That's what the New York Times finds so shocking about the Obama Administration's claim in the Budget, it indicates that the deficits brought on by government programs are actually unsustainable. It's a huge admission, especially when you consider Obama is still spending money hand over fist.

And how does he attempt to defray the cost of government in this budget? For Obama, it's taxes to the rescue.

This is yet another instance where Obama shows that he is an ideologue, not that we don't have a plethora of evidence already. I'll explain using excerpts from the MSNBC story linked above.

The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit — $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly — through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less. - MSNBC

This is where Obama's "making good" on his campaign promise about taxes, but it also reminds us that Obama believes that the country can operate better if the wealthy will only pay what he believes is their "fair share", a subjective value that seems to shift from Progressive to Progressive. According to Obama -

"While we extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget, we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year," Obama said. "We just can't afford it." - MSNBC

So because Obama believes the government will generate so much more income from the "wealthy" to cover programs that, by the Administration's own admission, are unsustainable, here come the taxes. At least those taxes don't seem to go above the Clinton tax rates of the ninties. Just wait until Obama realizes that he doesn't have a decade plus of prosperity to back the success of the those tax rates.

That's not all. Obama admits that small business is the real engine that drives this country, and to spur small business activities, not growth mind you, but activities, he's proposed a tax break for small businesses that hire more people or offer pay increases to it's employees, according to a story in the Politico.

Here's the problem with this idea, and don't get me wrong, I'm actually a supporter of this particular part of his plan. But the problem is that it assumes that businesses exist to provide "good paying" (whatever that means) jobs for people. The fact is that businesses exist to make money. A business will be happy to offer jobs through the course it's growth, based on the demand of it's product or service. But business owners do not daily fret over their inability to provide "good paying" jobs, with benefits, to people. And don't think that this is not in some way connected to health care, and other benefits Obama believes an employer should provide. After all, one of his programs is called "Making Work Pay", as if it doesn't already.

Not an ideologue?

Please...

Even the New York Times isn't all that optimistic about the future made my Obama's Budget -

Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. - New York Times

I'm sorry, did they just use the word "miraculous"? I thought that was a word used to describe Obama when referring to his achievement and promise, not what it would take to make an Obama policy work.