Luke Brinker, “The Observer”

For a president who campaigned on a pledge to make a clear break from Beltway gimmicks and politics as usual, Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget represents, overall, a sobering disappointment.

To understand the pitfalls, it is first necessary to acknowledge a few constructive items. Nodding to the urgent need for the US to better compete in the global economy, Obama said the administration will increase education funding by more than six percent. Additionally, more federal support will be devoted to research and development. That includes an increased commitment to investment in nuclear power, which should win the president praise from Republicans.

More controversial is the decision to allow the Bush administration’s tax cuts to expire for Americans earning more than $250,000 each year. But one needn’t be a soldier on the front lines of class war to realize that this makes economic sense. As economists have pointed out, tax cuts for the wealthy don’t carry much bang for the buck. The affluent are more likely to save the extra money than to spend it in the economy.

Reviving economic activity, of course, ought to be the president’s top focus right now. Deficits are dangerous, but will only increase further if spending cuts are imposed. Less demand generated in the economy brings fewer profits for business and lower tax revenues.

So the president’s call for a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending is particularly mystifying. This spending represents a mere 14% of the overall budget.

Avoiding discussion of entitlement reform and cuts in the gargantuan defense budget makes little sense if the administration wants to have an appreciable effect on long-term deficits.

Instead, political pressure may tempt the administration to prematurely cease stimulus spending.

The inevitable result of persistently high unemployment would, ironically, have far more disastrous political implications than running temporary deficits.

Ben Cohen, “Liberal Loudmouth”

It’s hard not to see Obama’s proposed spending freeze as a concession to fiscal conservatives who have pushed back on other parts of his agenda. Though it does not cover health care (that irony would just be too astounding), it also does not cover military spending.

As patient as I try to be with Obama (yes, there are times when I disagree with him), I worry that the spending freeze will embolden Congressional Conservatives. This could prove disasterous, given that the Republican Party is already acting like it is back in power, simply because it is now slightly less of a minority in the Senate.

Still, belt-tightening may be helpful as the American economy claws its way out of the pit the last administration dropped it into. So, maybe this move will pay off.

Job creation is also a big part of the president’s plan. This could prove more beneficial than any government program (yes, I really did just say that something is more helpful than government programs).

Overall, the spending freeze is definitely not the kind of thing I would have considered. It is an unorthodox decision, at least for a Democrat. And if there isn’t a major economic turnaround by the end of Obama’s first term, antsy Republicans and liberals who aren’t closely affiliated with the Democratic Party will both complain that the freeze was to blame.

One side will say it wasn’t enough, and that outright massive budget cuts were the only real solution. The other will complain that it prevented the government from actively improving beneficial social programs.

I hate to admit it, but, if the freeze fails, I’ll probably agree with that latter group.

Chet Compton, “The Right Idea”

Obama’s spending freeze is nothing short of smoke and mirrors. Here is why.

The programs that Obama intends to freeze only account for 14% of the overall budget. This is essentially a freeze on the regular departments. But what President Obama doesn’t say is that last year, he had free reign to increase the levels of spending in these departments as much as he wanted.

And increase he did, to astronomic levels. Last year alone, the Obama administration increased the budget of the EPA by over 35%. A normal increase in one year for the departments included in the freeze would be about 3-5%. So when a freeze is instituted on a department with the ballooned budget it now has, it essentially locks in that budget as normal.

So the freeze is doing exactly the opposite of what it looks like. Rather than reducing spending, it is locking in the huge increases instituted last year.

The massive “stimulus” bill pushed up spending for this part of the budget by about 40%, from $420 billion in 2008 to $699 billion in 2009. Obama’s freeze means these departments have a fixed budget of $447 billion, which is still higher than 2008 levels and 71% higher than the levels authorized in the year 2000.

That’s like McDonalds pulling the McDouble from the dollar menu and charging $3. Then, to cope with the tough economic times, reducing the price to $2 and expecting customers to think they are getting a bargain.

Here is another important trick. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 18% of stimulus funding will be spent in 2009. The reason Obama has the freedom to freeze a small part of the budget is because he still has massive amounts of cash pouring in from the rest of the stimulus package to help him fund his favorite big government projects.

— Brinker is a freshman from Topeka in history and political science. Cohen is a senior from Topeka in political science. Compton is a senior from Wichita in political science.