Howard Kurtz, in The Washington Post, has quoted Atlantic's Ross Douthat, as follows:

""You can't fund social democracy just by making the tax code ever more progressive: At some point, you need to raise revenue from the middle class. What Obama does have, though, is an atmosphere of crisis and a massively-unpopular opposition party, which grants him an unparalleled political opportunity to pass whatever spending the Democratic Party likes, and (*)(*)(*)(*) the short-term cost. And what you see in his budgeting proposals, I think, is the liberal equivalent of the conservative attempt to 'starve the beast.'

"In both the Reagan and Bush eras, Republicans passed tax cuts and ran up large deficits while hoping that by starving the federal government of revenue they would curb its long-run growth. Obama's spending proposals would effectively reverse that dynamic -- they would create new spending commitments and run up large deficits, in the hopes that the dollars poured into health care and education will create a new baseline for government's obligations, which in turn will create the political space for tax increases on the middle class. Like the starve-the-beast approach, the Obama strategy puts off the hard part till tomorrow: Give them tax cuts today, conservatives said, and they'll swallow spending cuts tomorrow; give them universal health care, universal pre-K, subsidies for green industry and all the rest of it today, liberals seem to be thinking, and they'll be willing to pay for it tomorrow."

I believe the man is onto something here. It is just about equally impossible to unring a bell or to unfund an established "entitlement." As Douthat notes, once these programs are in place, thereby "creat[ing] new spending commitments and run[ning] up large deficits," it will inevitably "create a new baseline for government's obligations, which in turn will create the political space for tax increases on the middle class."

Ah, the first baby steps toward democratic socialism in the US.