Excited about the Obama Budget

Barack Obama came into office promising, much like most of his 43 predecessors, a sea change in how politics work in Washington, a move away from partisanship and special interests and towards parternship and national interests, etc etc blah blah blah.... Usually this is just totally horeshit, and it may be in this case too, but the recently released budget plans are a sign that this time might actually be different.

First, it is a much more honest accounting of the expected expenditures our country will face in the future. For instance, Obama includes projected spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in projecting future deficits, whereas Bush projections assumed that these expenses would magically vanish in the future. 

Perhaps more impressive than the better transparency are the policy changes. Obama's plan to end all agricultural subsidies to farms with more than $500k in annual revenue represents an attack on the most ingrained of all special interests. Agricultural subsidies have long been the prime example held up by economists of inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. They also serve as an example of an "iron triangle" described by political scientists, a system of circular backscratching, nearly impossible to break, which results in billions of dollars being handed to special interests (in this case, farmers). If Obama were able to eliminate these subisidies, it would be an act of true statesmanship, in that is clearly in the national interest, but will require a lot of political capital and he will likely get no credit for it from the general public.

Another major step forward is in environmental policy. The budget anticipates hundreds of billion dollars in revenue from sales of carbon permits. Past proposals on emissions trading have usually simply endowed past polluters with current permits, which they could then trade. Obama's proposal would instead auction off the permits, which results in revenue for the government, and does not reward past pollution.

Finally, Obama promises to shift a lot of money into expenditure on health care. While that money won't get us all the way to nationalized health care, it makes a signficant step in that direction. I feel fairly confident in saying that a move to nationalized health care would be the single easiest (mechanically, not politically) and most effective way of increasing this nation's welfare. Feel free to disagree with me in comments if you want, but before you do, take a look at where the US ranks vs. other countries in terms of most indicators of national health, and then take a look at where we rank in dollars spent per person per year on health care. The results might surprise you.

-BRUECHIPS