Today, the Obama administration released its proposed federal budget for 2013. The Republicans’ reaction has been swift and united in its thematics, claiming the budget fails to promote fiscal responsibility or future prosperity, accusing Obama of “duck[ing] the responsibility to tackle this country’s fiscal problems” and choosing to “campaign instead of govern,” and generally slamming the budget as a “threat to job growth” and “more of the same failed ‘stimulus’-style policies.” All of this suggests the Republicans are unaware that America is not, in fact, the only market-based western democracy attempting to work its way out of a massive economic slump — or that these efforts provide concrete lessons in what will and will not produce economic growth.

In Britain, a large package of budget cuts and austerity measures which rolled out in 2010 has not unleashed the proverbial job creators in the private market. Instead, the country is still shackled with an economic growth trend that’s even worse that what it suffered in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

In the Eurozone as a whole, the European Central Bank and other relevant authorities have so far insisted on massive austerity measures from struggling countries in exchange for fiscal aid. Here, too, the result has not been a revitalized economy but a continuance of dismal growth rates.

Here at home, the effect of 2009′s recovery package and the tax deal in December 2010 was more than offset by cuts in state budgets. By the end of 2009, the combined budgets of the federal and state governments had entered a period of fiscal contraction from which they have yet to emerge.

The portions of Obama’s economic policy which actually passed simply made the economic hole created by state-level cuts less deep. Which was a valuable and necessary function, but insufficient to actually boost the economy back to healthy growth. Contrary to Republicans’ claim that Obama’s first two years were a period of unbound Keynesian experimentation, austerity is the budgetary policy reality which has accompanied America’s stagnant economic growth.

This matters because, now that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winding down, the Bush tax cuts and the lingering effects of the recession remain the two primary drivers of the U.S. federal deficit. While the Republicans insist on not only maintaining all the tax cuts, but blowing an even larger hole in our revenue with added tax relief for the wealthy, Obama has proposed raising new revenue by allowing the Bush cuts for the top income rates to expire and by eliminating other injustices in the code which go to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.

Even more importantly, because our tax system pulls in a percentage of the country’s overall wealth production, tax revenues will continue to underperform as long as our GDP production remains below capacity. The perverse irony of austerity as an immediate response to economic recession is that it drives down demand and GDP, thus driving down revenues and deepening the deficit hole it seeks to mend. In the opposite direction, a sudden positive jump in GDP could bring our economy back into line with its pre-recession trend and bring tax revenues back up without any change in tax rates or policy at all. The policy history in Britain, Europe, and here in America since the end of 2008 shows the Republicans’ austerity fixation won’t deliver this reinvigoration. But a recommitment by the government to boost demand could do the trick.

Obama’s budget, while imperfect, aims for the proper balance and the proper order of repairs: Investment now in jobs, infrastructure, state aid, extensions for the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, and other immediate boosts to demand, followed by longer-term deficit cutting once the economy is again firing on all cylinders. If the GOP had not been using every political tool at their disposal to undermine this approach during the last four years, the president could probably have done considerably more.

Our guest blogger is Sarah Glynn, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

President Obama submitted his budget for fiscal year 2013 to Congress this morning, with the explicit goal of “rebuild(ing) our economy and strengthen(ing) the middle class.” The $3.8 trillion budget includes $5 million to help individual states launch paid leave programs – similar to those in California and New Jersey – that allow workers to take paid time off from work to provide care to a new child or ailing family member.

While some have argued that government intervention into work-family policies will only increase the cost of employing women, and that the marketplace will respond by voluntarily providing policies in order to retain valuable employees, the evidence does not support these arguments. At present, there are huge gaps in access to maternity leave for working women. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2006 and 2008 about two-thirds of mothers with a bachelor’s degree or higher received paid maternity leave, but only 18.5 percent of those with less than a high school degree did. New mothers who have access to paid maternity leave are more likely to return to their previous employer, and 97.6 percent of those who return to the same employer do so at their previous pay level or higher. When women have to change employers after giving birth, often times because they are forced to quit or are fired in the absence of paid maternity leave, more than 30 percent experience a drop in pay.

New research on California’s Family Disability Insurance program illustrates how offering paid leave to women after childbirth helps individual workers and the economy as a whole. California’s program was passed in 2002, and became available to workers in July of 2004. Paid leave is administered through the State Disability Insurance program, and is funded through payroll taxes on employees. Eligible workers in California who take leave receive 55 percent of their regular pay, up to a maximum of $928 per week, for up to 6 weeks to bond with a new child or to care for a seriously ill family member.

California’s program has increased both job retention and the number of hours worked by employed mothers. More than 95 percent of workers who took leave in 2009 and 2010 returned to work; 80 percent returned to the same employer. Workers who made $20 an hour, meanwhile, returned to the same employer 83 percent of the time. And according to researchers from the University of Virginia and Columbia University, paid leave increased hours worked by mothers six to nine percent.

Working mothers are often the ones keeping their families afloat. The typical working wife now brings home 42.2 percent of her family’s earnings, and while married families with a male breadwinner and a female homemaker haven’t seen incomes rise since the 1970s (when adjusted for inflation), families with a working wife have seen incomes grow by 30 percent. Families where wives work, work longer hours, and receive higher pay are thus more likely to maintain their position on the income ladder or move up.

If every woman in America had access to paid leave when she had a baby, estimates are that this would increase employment by approximately 40,000 new mothers each year. Imagine how many families that would help raise up into the middle class, or secure their foothold there. If we are serious about repairing the economy, we must remember that a rebuilding a strong middle class is not just about helping the unemployed find work, but also about helping workers keep the jobs they already have. Paid family leave is one policy that can help us meet those goals.

President Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2013 this morning in Virginia, touting it as a budget that took a balanced approach toward investigating in American economic growth now while reducing the nation’s deficit over the long-term. The budget is a step in the right direction, using both tax increases and spending cuts to cut the deficit and investing in infrastructure and other job creation measures to continue the economic recovery.

Like any budget, Obama’s is complicated, containing investments and cuts to various programs. With that in mind, ThinkProgress compiled 10 facts about the Obama budget based on the White House fact sheet and other reports:

1. The budget includes $350 billion in short-term measures to encourage job growth, including $50 billion in immediate infrastructure investment, $30 billion to rebuild schools, and year-long extensions of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance.

2. The implementation of the Buffett Rule and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy helps reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

3. For every $1 in new revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year and from closing corporate loopholes, the budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.

4. The total budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.

5. Obama preserves the maximum Pell Grant award, a key difference from the GOP budget, and makes permanent then Americans Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps 9 million families afford the costs of college.

6. Unlike the last two GOP budgets, Obama’s budget protects Medicare and Medicaid from structural changes, and through small tweaks, saves $360 billion from those programs.

7. States will receive $30 billion in aid to prevent further layoffs of firefighters, teachers, and police officers, some of the hardest-hit workforces in the nation.

8. The budget eliminates 12 tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal companies, saving $41 billion over 10 years.

9. Obama preserves planned cuts to the Defense Department negotiated in the debt limit deal last August.

10. The budget maintains goals of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015; doubling share of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035; and reducing buildings’ energy use by 20 percent by 2020.

As the Center for American Progress’ Michael Linden notes, Obama’s budget is far from perfect. It’s spending caps are too low, it’s defense cuts are too small, and it contains less new revenue than bipartisan plans like Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-Domenici. But it prioritizes job creation and economic development and keeps America on the path to recovery, something Republican plans, unfortunately, fail to do.