By Definition, A Presidential Budget Is A Political Pinata

Back when there was a president of one party and a Congress of another, there was a familiar refrain when the former would send his budget proposal to the latter. It was called "dead on arrival."

One might expect a different dynamic when one party — in this case, the Democrats — run the show in Washington. But with the Republican Party on a roll and elections coming up, President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011 may have some barriers to topple, including from his own party.

The Obama budget, sent to Congress today, promises to deal with reducing the deficit, currently at $1.6 trillion — the highest since World War II — which the president says is unacceptable:

We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard-earned tax money of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money.

In addition to the spending cuts, it would let expire the income tax cuts that the Bush administration passed for those making more than $250,000 a year. It would also collect a tax on large banks and ending some tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

There are no proposed cuts to defense spending, or spending on veterans, or on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Education spending would increase, as would spending for city and state infrastructure. And, of course, more money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with ancillary actions in Pakistan.

USA Today lists winners and losers in the budget debate.

Also, an interesting bit of sparring between CNN anchor Kiran Chetry and White House budget czar Peter Orszag over what constitutes "middle class," as told here by Sam Stein on the Huffington Post blog.

According to the administration's projections, the deficit for 2011 is expected to fall to $1.3 trillion — about what Obama faced when he first came into office. In 2012, when Obama is up for re-election, the deficit would fall to $828 billion.

Liberal Democrats have already sent out the alarm bells over the freeze on many domestic programs; a recap of progressive angst is reported today in Roll Call by Steven Dennis. He quotes House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers (D-MI) as saying of Obama, "He's doing exactly what George Bush would have done. ... If you're talking about my vote, boy that budget's in trouble." Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), when she first heard about the spending freeze, said, "I was hoping it was a typo." And Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) voiced serious misgivings about the budget: ""I don't understand how a domestic spending freeze accomplishes creating jobs and turning our economy around."

Republicans aren't much happier; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, called it "nothing more than a plan for more of the same — a very aggressive agenda of more government spending, more taxes, more deficits and more debt — with just a few cosmetic budget maneuvers to give the illusion of restraint."

Here's part of a statement from Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), chair of the Republican Study Committee:

It's astounding to hear the President talk about fiscal sanity but then turn around and propose the largest budget deficits in history. This administration's rhetoric about reining in deficit spending is clearly not meant to be taken seriously. President Obama's proposed $1.6 trillion deficit for next year is 3.5 times larger than the biggest deficit under any other American president. ...

And as if record deficits weren't enough, President Obama's budget still includes major tax increases that will hit our fragile economy like a brick wall. The last thing American small businesses need is a tax hike, but the President just announced he's coming after their bottom line. This remarkable lack of understanding of what makes our economy grow is exactly what is preventing job creation.

A completely different interpretation was offered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

President Obama's budget directly tackles our nation's most pressing challenges — reflecting our dedication to fiscal discipline and our commitment to keep jobs, growth, and opportunity at the top of our agenda.

But, she added, she said she expects that upon further examination, "waste can be found in all departments and agencies — including the Defense Department."