"Mr. Obama will suggest in his budget that expanding health coverage to the more than 46 million uninsured can be done without adding to the deficit, both by making cost-saving changes in the delivery of care and by raising revenues. Advisers declined to identify the tax source."

From Bloomberg:

"Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Ed Rendell disagreed, saying on "Fox News Sunday" that the idea that "raising taxes on the richest people" will harm the economy is "rubbish." ...

"Yet Mr. Obama will inflate his challenge by forsaking several gimmicks that President Bush used to make deficits look smaller. He will include war costs in the budget; Mr. Bush did not, and instead sought supplemental money from Congress each year. Mr. Obama also will not count savings from laws that establish lower Medicare payments for doctors and expand the alternative minimum tax to hit more taxpayers -- both of which Mr. Bush and Congress routinely took credit for, while knowing they would later waive the laws to raise doctors' payments and limit the reach of the tax."

Course, they put a different headline up:

"Obama plans soak the rich class warfare economics"

In February 1994, President Bill Clinton named Peterson as a member of the Bi-Partisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform co-chaired by Senators Bob Kerrey and John Danforth.

I just wish that instead of promising 1/2 reduction Obama had used the term "significant" reduction.  Now the media will hold him to the 50% number and if he reaches 49.5% reduction, the media (and Republicans) will nail him.

allowing bush excesses to lapse is not sufficient to address the government's budget problems. Taxes on the wealthy, particularly the estate tax need to be increased and the "defense budget" axed. Someone, sometime must go after the gigantic republican pork project known as "defense" spending, most of which spending has little to do with defense and everything to do with lining the pockets of fat cat republicans atop the MIC. If Obama were serious about actual deficit reduction (which he is not) he must significantly cut defense spending.

Two factors irked me particularly during the campaign: the lack of critical debate and the soporific response of the press to wholly implausible promises offered up by the candidate for change.

Out of Iraq in 16 months? Did we not hear that? Transparency? Gitmo closed? (He promised, I know, but it's open for business today). Tax-cuts for 95% of Americans? That nonsense was still being peddled as late as November and from what I understand of the directions from the WH, Obama wanted a 60/40 mix of spending/reduction in the stimulus package.

I'm spending a lot of time at Naked Capitalism and other economics blogs that were highly critical of the Bush years. 'Denial' is the word that appears fairly regularly.

The last thing America needs right now is another speech. The wheels are coming off and 'I feel your pain' and 'We're all going to have to suck it up' aren't going to do anything but drive the mood further down.

People are just starting to wake-up to the fact that words alone aren't going to do it. Obama, has been saying as much all along, but folks have been so dopey and glassy-eyed over basking in the glory they've bestowed on themselves (with some hints from you know who)that they haven't been listening. Now with the economy tanking, many are.

People want answers, not promises. Of course, the higher the deficits are at the end of the first two years, the easier it will be to halve them by cutting out the most egregious waste and by cutting back emergency spending.

Smoke and mirrors. America's children and the next administration will have an enormous bill to pay as things stand. Whether any real progress has been made preparing America for 21st century success remains to be seen.

By that and with my instincts there is a huge host of problems that are likely streaming out of the wood work with this deficit issue. Everyone might guess that Bush and Company along with the complicit media have been less than honest for years. More like obnoxiously covering any detail that would give advantage to solve this economic bomb handed off to the Democrats.

America we are not in free fall, it is more like Bush and Company knew the force is an economic black hole pulling everything in with tremendous force. Or the Republican vortex of "NO" is working hard in the background.  Then, Bush and Company along with the complicit media after the election claiming economic disaster is at hand. Exclaiming fear of complete banking failure if they don't get the money they needed. Then the Republican Neo-Con's blaming it on Obama. Then, dumping this economic hot potato on Obama and the American electorate. They, the media should be ashamed of themselves.

Or as the Attorney General said we are a nation of cowards. For me reflecting on race relations is also at core but to me there is a curve here and it is not Black White stuff it is more like White, White stuff. The good old boy White network just let each other slide and make you and me the electorate be blamed for their mistakes. Plus we pay them bonus money for it. America we are not only cowards we are stupid cowards.

With a giggle, Armando knows what I am driving at, that is the tort laws in America are widely interpreted wrong, and out of synch with how capitalism should work. Just trying to put John Doe or Joe Six Pack on the same playing field as JP Morgan, or Bloomberg is making floor traders like that Santini guy on CNBC whale cry and opine about unfair mortgage deals over the cable network.

One should guess the risk management systems for the banks went totally hooey. You mean that band that dresses up like pirates playing their song about free credit .com is not working too well. Hee Haw. Or you can not read those very little letters on credit commercials that looks like about two hundred little letters barely readable flashed on for two seconds. The basic disclaimer for all the contracts we sign. Armando, would that be considered treachery in advertising?