http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1235736116-KAm 6GAMWT 7Pmgc7kTt/Q The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters. The Obama budget â€” a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables â€” would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush.... More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1 (By the liberal Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman.) Elections have consequences. President Obamaâ€™s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course. ... But wonâ€™t the deficit be swollen by interest on the debt run-up over the next few years? Not as much as you might think. Interest rates on long-term government debt are less than 4 percent, so even a trillion dollars of additional debt adds less than $40 billion a year to future deficits. And those interest costs are fully reflected in the budget documents.