This clever bit of forecasting allows the administration to claim a decrease in government spending in 2012 (granted that it's only $90 billion, or 2 percent, less than the 2011 forecast).
However, when you compare 2010 to 2012, there is a $273 billion increase in government spending. So, while Obama might talk about a decline in government spending in 2012, it's only because his 2011 forecast includes a government spending increase of $363 billion, or 11 percent.
In this year's budget submission, revenues are forecast to rise $453 billion, or 21 percent, in 2012. Much of the forecast is based on a 65 percent increase in corporate taxes. This is a substantial increase in taxes.
In selling his budget this week, Obama mentioned a letter he had recently received "from a woman named Brenda Breece. ... She's looking, as we speak, for a second job to help put Rachel (her daughter) through college and ensure, as she told me, that 'the money is there to help Rachel with her future.'"
Obama continued with, "What's true for Brenda's family is true for the larger American family. ... We're going to have to get serious about cutting back on those things that would be nice to have but we can do without."
The difference is that Brenda Breece is willing to take on a second job to secure her daughter's future, and Obama's budget never lives within our means. Every year in his budget there is a deficit, with the lowest deficit at $607 billion in 2015.
Obama's budget does not live up to his rhetoric -- we never live within our means, and he only reaches his target of cutting the deficit in half by first increasing it by 27 percent. His pitch is for us to live with a high deficit in 2012 (he labels it an investment) so that the out-years (2013 -- 2021) will get better.
We need to quit listening to the sales pitch and focus on this year and next because, in budgeting, the out-years never come.
Showdown in Jackson Hole: The Fed Challenged on its Own Turf in Wyoming by Group Likely to Finally Start Dismantling it | Rachel Alexander