Taken together, these decrees portend a decade of deficit spending. Mindful of the rhetoric employed against him, Obama has promised to halve his incoming deficit by the end of his first term, successfully neutralizing the current crisis and paying back a good deal of debt accrued by former President George W. Bush.

At more than a thousand pages, the recent stimulus bill would be an ambitious summer read, yet it flew through the legislative process at a dizzying pace, offering a new fund just as the old depleted its last reserves. Transparency and breadth mark the difference between the two — while the September bailout distributed its capital through a murky subterfuge, the current plan at least attempts to document its exploits.

At the oft-invoked Web site www.recovery.gov, the taxpayer can theoretically track where his money is being spent, though it is clearly still a work in progress.

The bill and budget enjoy wide support, largely on the strength of Obama’s particular charisma, and the common sense appeal of his stated priorities. Each of our era’s particular ills: crumbling digital and analog infrastructure, an education system that forces debt, a health care system that profits from sickness and an energy policy devised by a shortsighted youth have been addressed with gallant candor. But there are assumptions tacit in his budget which have not been discussed.

Nearly all of the numbers quoted by the Obama administration were based on the idea that our economy should see a soft landing in 2009, contracting only 1.2 percent, before recovering in 2010, with a 3.2 percent growth rate.

None of this seems very likely at this point. In the last quarter of 2008 the GDP shrank at a horrifying 6.3 percent annual rate, and trends only have accelerated since then. Economists are now predicting we will spend 2009 in shambles, essentially voiding these estimates.

To pay for his magnanimous gesture, Obama has proposed to decrease our presence in the Middle East and to levy a tax on our wealthier citizens. But the potential gains from the Iraq drawdown are mitigated by a doubled troop deployment to Afghanistan, and both represent a small fraction of the values being discussed.

Instead, the money is to come from printed reserve notes and foreign investment. Thus far, the dollar has retained value only through its historical strength. Much as AIG and Citigroup before it, the U.S. government is still considered “too big to fail.” So long as this is assumed true, creditors such as China will continue to supply us with liquidity. If this dogma is abandoned, however, we may see inflation of the Weimar German variety (Fears of inflation, which were prevalent at the start of this crisis, have now largely fallen silent).

The one aspect on which the Obama administration deserves credit is its rhetorical commitment to transparency. But the dollar amounts being discussed demand far more.

In four rounds of bailouts our government has committed nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to AIG and Citigroup alone. Client lists have still been withheld, leaving the taxpayer in the dark as to who, precisely, will benefit from this gift. We cannot content ourselves with populist appeal. No leader, even one as popular as ours, can be trusted to act scrupulously without rigorous public oversight.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News guest columnist and chemical engineering senior. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu.