Some readers ask why I’m not giving the Obama budget plan a grilling comparable to the one I’m giving to Romney. Well, I’m glad you asked that: it’s because the Obama plan, whether you like it or not, doesn’t have anything like Romney’s reliance on magic asterisks.

What Obama proposes is for the most part a continuation of current tax and spending policy, except for a rise in taxes on the over-250K crowd and some relatively modest spending cuts relative to current policy. The CBO analysis of his proposals basically agrees with his numbers.

You can quarrel with the Obama projection, arguing that some assumptions are too optimistic, or alternatively that it doesn’t bring down the deficit enough. But there’s no big mystery about what he intends.

Romney, on the other hand, proposes $5 trillion in tax cuts compared to current policy, which he claims he will offset by closing loopholes — but won’t name a single example. He also claims that he’ll achieve huge cuts in discretionary spending, but refuses to specify what will be cut.

Sorry, but these aren’t comparable stories. Obama has been as open and forthright as one can reasonably expect; Romney is hiding behind a smokescreen.

Oh, and some people are asking what Obama would do in a second term. First and foremost, he would preside over the actual implementation of Obamacare, the most important extension of the social safety net since Medicare. Love it or hate it, that’s huge, and will change the American social landscape permanently.