This is, indeed, a contrast in visions.  We are in the middle of a struggle for the future of our country, and the budget blueprint lays out the parameters of that struggle.

This table, from the House’s Committee on the Budget’s Web site, lays out the contrast pretty clearly.

A couple of comments are in order (I’ll ignore the political hype in the characterizations in both sides of this table and address only the actual data provided).

First, notice that President Obama’s budget (about which neither he nor his Senate Democrat minions are serious; this is just a campaign speech) both increases Federal spending an enormous amount and increases taxes even more.  This certainly is one way to balance the budget (IFF the tax revenues resulting from those increases actually occur; however, raising taxes actually lowers tax revenue flowing by reducing the economic activity that produces those revenues), but it does so at the expense of our economy’s ability to function.  It constitutes $3.4 trillion dollars taken away from individual Americans and our businesses, either directly—those taxes—or indirectly by taking our spending decisions away from us and putting them into the hands of the Federal government.  It says that we Americans are utterly incapable of making our own money allocation decisions; we must yield those to our Betters in government.

The House budget blueprint, though (it’s certainly true that it could serve as a campaign speech, but it has the added—and critical—advantage of being an actual, workable budget blueprint), recognizes two fundamental things: the money involved is ours, not government’s; we only allocate some of our money to government to spend on our purposes (and not on government’s purposes).  Secondly, the government does not need the money, it does not need those taxes; government does need to spend less.  Period.  It really is that simple.

My second comment concerns the two plans’ attitude toward the appropriate size of government and from that their attitudes toward us Americans.  Obama wants to expand government, not only in size but in authority over our lives.  Government is the answer to our problems, and so the Progressives seek to increase our dependency on government.  Moreover this increase in dependency is not limited to those of us who already are government dependents.  Progressives want to make us all government wards.  We cannot be trusted to work out our own solutions, to make our own decisions.  We’re just not good enough at it.

The House blueprint, in stark contrast, shrinks the size and power of government.  This blueprint respects and trusts us Americans to make our own decisions, and to do a better job for each of us individually, as well as for any groups of us, than government can ever hope to do.  After all, at best, government is limited either to a one-size-fits-all solution (which perforce actually fits no one) or to a collection of “solutions” tailored to groups of us (groupings defined by government, mind you, not by us) that demands an army of bureaucrats to administer and another army of lawyers to interpret and defend.

The choice, then, is clear: whom should we elect this fall?  A collection of politicians who don’t trust us with our own lives, or a collection of politicians who are looking actually to reduce government’s—and their—power over us?

Here is a sort-of side-by-side comparison of Senator Rick Santorum’s economic plan with Governor Mitt Romney’s plan—only sort-of because they address different things in addition to their areas of overlap.

Senator Santorum opened the discussion of his plan with this:

…Obamanomics has left one in six Americans in poverty, and one in four children on food stamps. Millions seek jobs and others have given up.

while Governor Romney had similar words to introduce his plan:

We have record-breaking unemployment and deficit spending, and a tax code that looks like it was devised by our worst enemy to tie us in knots. These three afflictions are interconnected. I have a plan to address them and achieve three goals: more jobs, less debt, and smaller government.

Unstated in his present plan is his prior insistence on continuing to use our tax code to perpetuate the myth of the usefulness of government-centric economic engineering: he singles out manufacturing for especially low tax rates—no manufacturing corporate tax at all.

In addition, Santorum had this to say about jobs: he’d approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and he’d repeal all “Obama administration regulations that have an economic burden over $100 million.”  I don’t understand, though, why he exempts similar regulations from earlier administrations.  He also insists that Federal agencies must use “sound science and cost benefit analysis;” although here, too, he’s short on specifics, like what analyses fit this bill, or what constitutes “sound” science and cost benefit analysis.

Santorum also says he’ll work to replace Obamacare with “competitive insurance choices,” but without saying what constitutes “competitive” in his view—and he claims to be able to achieve this while maintaining a mandate that somebody must “protect those with uninsurable health conditions.”

Finally, he promises to present to Congress five free trade agreements his first year—but with whom?

Romney, on the other hand, expects his lower taxes to stimulate job growth.  He’s not far wrong here, but more specifics about jobs would have been nice in addition to those tax system generalities.

Both plans are vague on spending cuts, and both continue market distorting subsidies/tax credits of one sort or another—never minding that these simply continue government-generated distortions in our economy, driving up the prices of things that are subsidized and forcing all of us to pay for those price increases, whether we buy the subsidized item or not.  The two plans also emphasize different sides of the revenue coin: Romney focuses on the tax system while Santorum dwells more on spending and budgeting.

In the end, both plans, shortfalls and all, are enormous improvements over the Progressives’ plan of increased spending, higher taxes, exploding debt, and starker class warfare.