TheLoop21.com

By: Lenny McAllister (Add to your loop)
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 01:00

President Obama's budget might not be as good as it sounds.

A closer look at the proposed budget from the White House may show this staunchest supporters that, well, it’s not what you think.

When President Obama presented his $3.8 trillion budget to the nation this week – not long after his State of the Union address that discussed a freeze for 2011 that will address the deficit – he was going to get a lot of opposition from many directions.

Those who have long-since argued for a balanced amendment to the Constitution will point to this proposal as another example of government run amok – and taking America's standing throughout the world with it.

Republicans, pro-big business advocates, and those making over $250k are going to be upset as well, as the president’s proposal sets into play a cycle of reversing tax cuts implemented by President G. W. Bush, instituting higher taxes on individuals (e.g., raising the capital gains tax by 5 percent), large financial institutions (e.g., a “financial crisis responsibility fee” worth $90 billion over 10 years, not exactly an incentive for Bank of America and others to grow their employment base in a recession), and select big businesses (e.g., a tax on gas, oil and coal companies worth $39 billion over the next decade.)

Now, you may think that this is ok because, after all, these folks gained advantages during the Bush Era that led to this recession. They “deserve” to pay more.

However, we have to look at the other side of the coin to see more of the story – namely, the aspects that impact more of us directly.

The populist-sounding president has, in fact, been taking a more grassroots tone over the past couple of weeks, waging his finger at both sides of the aisle in taking them to task over the obstacles of 2009 and the need for solutions in 2010.

He has also made it known throughout his presidency that he feels that America must be rebuilt from the bottom-up (in contrast to the “trickle down” approach of “Reaganomics” and, more recently, the Bush tax cuts), through education, jobs, and infrastructure improvements. As we know, all three are tied together. Without access to good education or jobs, there is no way to be active contributors or benefactors of any infrastructure improvements.

So, although Republicans and conservatives would argue the merits of free-market principles in addressing these issues, it would only make sense that big-government proponents under Obama would see their tenets reflected in his 2011 budget proposal, particularly to help the underclass that he feels is part of the “bottom-up” approach that we need to rebuild the nation.

Well, perhaps not, if the budget proposal from the White House is any indication.

Despite seeing increases in areas such as the Forest Service (1.4 percent increase), Global Health (9.4 percent increase), and NASA Exploration Activities (7.8 percent increase), the items that seem to impact the underprivileged the most in their struggle to improve their collective lot see a different fortune. Funding for initiatives such as the Education of the Disadvantaged (decrease of 31 percent), Higher Education (decrease of 5.5 percent), and Vocational Education (decrease of 3.6 percent) all would be cut if President Obama’s budget went through as-is.

Even recurring rhetorical themes in his speeches such as improving the status of poor-performing and run-down schools in the nation seem to pale against the Obama reality, as programs such as the School Improvement Fund (decrease of 65 percent) and SMART grants (decrease of 58 percent) take big hits in this budget proposal, contravening the president’s messages to the NAACP last summer and elsewhere that repeatedly noted the need to improve America’s schools to better equip American students for the jobs of today and tomorrow.