The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut.
This is where I end up disagreeing with some of these guys. Sure, a lot of those things he thinks we ought to do would be nice, BUT, IMO, only if we already balance the budget. They are not things you borrow money every single year for. It is one of the issues I've had talking to people about (mostly liberal leaners not all) is that they want to cut spending, but they are quickly willing to make exceptions for so many things it defeats the purpose of getting spending under control.
Outside of that, I agree. The few things I have heard of Obama's budget tells me it is a sad joke. The Republican House should put it up for a vote, kill it outright, and do their own budget.
