That's the obvious consensus regarding Obama's proposed budget.
Here's a few paragraphs from Slate's Today's Papers:
President Obama presented his budget and left no doubt that he was being serious when he promised change. The $3.55 trillion spending plan included broad goals and few details but outlined how Obama plans to finance more spending in health care, energy, and education while increasing taxes on the top 5 percent of taxpayers, the oil and gas industry, and hedge-fund managers, among others. In short: Bye-bye, Reaganomics. The 134-page budget "is unprecedented in size, breathtaking in scope and sure to have a major impact on millions of Americans," declares USA Today. The Wall Street Journal notes that the spending plan "marks a significant change in nearly 30 years of governing philosophy."
The Washington Post declares that "Obama's agenda seeks to foster a redistribution of wealth, with the government working to narrow the growing gap between rich and poor." In order to achieve this, though, Obama "laid down controversial markers on almost every major issue facing the country," notes the Los Angeles Times. The WSJ predicts that the spending plan "is likely to herald one of the fiercest political fights Washington has seen in years." Republicans were quick to raise their objections yesterday, and in what was clearly a "worrisome sign for the president," as the New York Times puts it, Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine, one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus package, declared that while the president's goals are "worthy" she lamented that the budget "falls woefully short" on fiscal restraint and reducing the deficit.
The budget made it clear that changing the way Washington works doesn't come cheap. This year's deficit would reach $1.75 trillion, which amounts to more than 12 percent of the economy and is the highest level since 1945. The administration says it will begin to trim the deficit, partly by reducing the costs of fighting the Iraq war but also "by assuming a rate of economic growth by 2010 that private forecasters and even some White House advisers consider overly rosy," points out the NYT. The White House was quick to counter criticism saying that it plans to raise taxes during a recession by pointing out that none of the increases would take effect until 2011. Still, some economists think that might be too early and could hurt the economy. And while the administration insists it plans to halve the deficit by the end of Obama's first term, analysts said the budget doesn't contain a plan to keep bringing it down in the long run.
Congressional Quarterly reports that Republicans will attack the proposal by calling it European styled socialism:
GOP congressional leaders Friday vowed to oppose President Obama’s budget priorities, comparing them to those of socialist governments in Europe.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio — speaking to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington — targeted their barbs at Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget blueprint, including his proposal for a new cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions allowances.
The charge of socialism was used against Obama during his presidential campaign. The lawmakers also abandoned rhetorical references to bipartisanship — often heard during debates in the House and Senate — in their remarks.
The lawmakers said they also opposed Obama’s vision for broadening government health care programs and attacked the pending fiscal 2009 omnibus spending measure (HR 1105) and the newly enacted economic stimulus measure (PL 111-5). They criticized a number of Democratic domestic priorities aimed at the party’s liberal base, such as a proposal to allow unions to organize without a secret ballot, a process known as “card check.”
It'll be a useful debate. A clearldistinction between the parties will allow for a clear evaluation of the startegy come 2012, if not 2010. In my opinion, this is how the process is supposed to run.
