President Barack Obama unleashed his proposed 2012 budget this week, pronouncing, proudly: "I've called for a freeze on annual domestic spending over the next five years. This freeze would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, bringing this kind of spending -- domestic discretionary spending -- to its lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president."

Focus on the word "freeze." That is exactly what many people might do, if this budget passes as proposed. While defence spending increases, with the largest Pentagon funding request since World War II, the budget calls for cutting in half a program called Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

If only the unemployed weren't so reckless with our money.

In predicting a $50 billion deficit last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was quick to centre-stage the role of the unemployed and his other favourite whipping boy -- the autoworkers -- in soaking up government funds and pushing us deeper into debt.

Flaherty seemed keen to deflect public wrath onto these ill-fated workers, clearly victims of the global economic meltdown triggered by Wall Street. Most of them have probably never even been to Wall Street, let alone flipped asset-backed securities inside hedge fund portfolios.

It is astonishing given all the commentary and news stories about the "sudden" $50 billion federal deficit there has not been a single story in the mainstream media that focuses on the principal explanation: the huge tax cuts made by the Liberals and Conservatives since 1995.

First it was former finance minister Paul Martin with his $100 billion income tax cut over five years starting in 2000. Then it was Jim Flaherty in 2007 with $60 billion over five years. Add to that the $12 billion lost each year by lowering the GST from seven per cent to five per cent and the $50 billion is no mystery. It was an inevitability whenever the next recession hit.