The president is moving so fast, so sweepingly, that we may as well call him "Fast Break" Obama. For several reasons—the urgency of the economic crisis, a backlog of frustrated Democratic dreams and his own shrewd strategic sense—he's racing up the basketball court of American public life at a furious pace.

Obama wants to pile up a crushing lead on the scoreboard early in the game—when his popularity is high and he can still lay all the blame on his predecessor—and hope that the resulting momentum will impress the world (he goes to Europe for the G-8 in April), reluctant global investors (the sovereign wealth funds are sitting on trillions) and, of course, American voters and consumers.

The guy appears laid back, and he can be patient when he has to be, but right now he believes in motion—lots of it. If you move fast enough, he also knows, people don't have time to flyspeck details—and some of the details in his new budget, the outlines of which he released Thursday, are either squishy, controversial or both. There are literally hundreds of things in the budget to focus on, but I will pick out just three:

1. War Arithmetic. In a clever bit of budget making, Obama is taking advantage of George W. Bush's dishonesty to make his own budget look better. The former president's administration never counted spending on Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget it sent to Congress. By taking the hit early, and including that spending—now roughly $140 billion a year—Obama will be able to claim major savings down the road. In 2011 and 2012, that spending is slated to decline to $50 billion a year. So Obama and his budget crew can book savings of $180 billion—assuming, of course, that Obama is in fact able to wind down those wars.

2. Rosy Scenario. The simplest way to make the future look good is to assume that it will be. That is what Obama's budget does. Independent experts, on the Hill and in the private sector, are predicting that economic growth in 2010 will be (to average their estimates) about 1.7 percent. The president is assuming that growth will be nearly double that number. The rosier outlook allows Budget Director Peter Orszag to pencil in much smaller spending numbers for things such as unemployment insurance, and larger ones for receipts from income and employment taxes. Bottom line: much smaller deficits in the famous "out years."

3. Taxing Carbon. The "cap-and-trade" concept originated in the world of environmentalism, but it has dawned on federal officials and politicians that it's potentially a colossal source of tax revenue. Lord knows we have more air pollution than we know what to do with, so why not tax the heck out of those who produce it? Specifically, the scheme would tax carbon emissions by the pound, and allow polluters to trade the "right" to pollute by paying taxes. The original aim was to encourage electric utilities to develop new, non-carbon technologies, on the theory that if they didn't need the "carbon credits," they could sell them to those who still do. Obama is hoping to raise $79 billion in 2012 by implanting this system.

For now, all the money is supposed to go into technological research, and into compensating low-income customers of utilities that will try to pass on the cost of the tax. But the budget makers know that if they establish the new system, it could eventually yield hundreds of billions a year—and there is no guarantee that the $79 billion, if it materializes, will indeed all be spent on environmental matters.

Still, there is no guarantee that any of this will happen at all. In the heartland of America—places where they cling to their guns and their religion—they burn coal. Lots of coal. If Obama and the Democrats push this plan, a regional war will erupt. It will be ugly and it won't shape up along party lines. It's not a source of revenue Orszag should count on—at least not just yet—especially if the president is expecting to have an easy time winning Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania in 2012.