Krugman and the budget

Even Paul Krugman concedes that there is no way the government can be adequately funded without a middle class tax increase:

I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.

The New York Times columnist, meanwhile, in a display of just what a leftist radical he is calls the budget, with all of its attendant fantasies, "very, very good." This, I remind you, for a budget that has a deficit for the current year at about $1.75 trillion. Krugman blew a gasket for deficits under Bush that were, at the most, about a quarter of what Obama is set to run.

The difference -- beyond Bush being a Republican -- is that the Bush deficit was caused primarily by tax reductions and spending in Iraq. Obama's deficits are going to fund a massive expansion of government so they are quite acceptable. And that really sums up all you need to know about Krugman.

Update: Oh, and I forgot about this part:

Furthermore, the Obama budget only tells us about the next 10 years. That’s an improvement on Bush-era budgets, which looked only 5 years ahead.

It's an absurdity. If Krugman really believes that 10 year budgets -- a certain part of which Obama won't even be in office even if re-elected -- are useful or have any bearing on reality then he is a fool. I defy anyone to look back at a federal budget and then find even a 5 year projection that was accurate.