“We just can’t keep on spending as if deficits don’t have consequences,” President Obama said during his State of the Union Address.These are interesting words — considering they were the introduction for his new budget proposal, which is projected to increase the deficit spending by $1.56 trillion.Blatant hypocrisy aside, this figure is optimistically low, considering the math used to calculate it.This number was derived by piling on imaginary revenue the administration expects will be generated by the passage of key pieces of legislation, according to the president’s statements.This proposal is optimistic to the point of foolishness, particularly considering the current political climate. Last month alone saw the political upset that was Scott Brown, R-Mass., reflecting a telling dislike with the administration’s proposals to date. This new trend only increases the likelihood of defeating legislation aimed to generate the non-existent revenues of which the president seems so fond.Such fairytale revenues are meant to make a dent into the proposed $3.83 trillion budget proposal, which aims to fight unemployment, increase taxes on the wealthy and freeze government programs with selectivity.To some, the word “selectivity” may evoke a feeling of fiscal responsibility and budgeting wisdom. But the sad reality is this brand of “selectivity” neatly sidesteps the third rail of politics — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security— leaving us with a pittance in terms of savings.According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $250 billion in savings will be generated during the next decade, meaning we’ll be saving less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate in the same period.Even the long-term revenues that may be generated by the proposed $100 billion tax break for small businesses will do little to combat the deficit and its accompanying compound interest. This proposal is more of an attempt to garner Republican support for the budget than sound fiscal policy, meaning it is not aggressive enough and will be costly, particularly in the short term.Considering this gridlock, the best option left to us is finding individuals willing and able to attack the aforementioned third rail of politics.Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is the only politician who seems willing to broach the subject. In his new plan, “Roadmap for America’s Future,” he outlines his ideas for reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, citing the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities these programs have saddled us with as reason for his reform.In the broadest sense, his plan promotes phasing out these entitlement programs with heavy emphasis on privatization and cost-controlled vouchers.The details of realizing Ryan’s plan are more complex, but the fundamentals are sound. His proposal would erase the long-term deficit and actually result in a small surplus, according to estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.But the unpopularity of such a policy will make it difficult to attract other members of Congress to support it — particularly as many of them are career politicians unwilling to make cuts to these programs.This is especially true considering, mere months ago, said politicians were screaming to save these programs from being cut to fund the proposed health care legislation.But radical fiscal policy such as Ryan’s is necessary, even if unsavory. The status quo cannot be maintained and does not deserve to be kept regardless.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.—-Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]