President Obama has always been a believer in taxes. This we’ve known. He’s never been shy about his faith in taking from the producer and giving it to…well, whomever he chooses. And since the man is completely uninterested in church, it appears taxing everyone and frenzied spending is as close to a religion as he gets.

In this belief system is the option to break promises whenever and however necessary, all to continue out-of-control, manic spending. Like a druggie in need of a fix.

During a Bloomberg interview, Obama announced yet another campaign promise, a big one, he’s not all that worried about keeping. No taxes for anyone making under $200,000 or households making under $250,000. Remember that one? It’s now off the table.

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

A presidential commission on the budget has now been given the green light to consider tax increases on the poor, those lost and dependent souls whose needs are the bedrock of every Democrat campaign.

Yet again, an Obama promise with an expiration date.

Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.

A vow is only as binding as the person who makes it.

“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

He’s got one thing right. There is definitely a mismatch between what Americans can sweat and strive and produce to support themselves, and what government believes they have a right to take and spend. No need trying to politically correct the situation. In simple circles, it’s called thievery.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Well…to start with. Not spending $787 billion on a non-stimulating stimulus package would have benefited the deficit. Or…cutting pork projects. Or not funding ACORN. Or not buying GM in order to pay off the unions. Or not passing ObamaCare, which no one wants. Or ending the pay raise Congress gave itself last year. Or cutting out wasteful spending, like Nancy Pelosi’s taxpayer funded private jet. Or putting the TARP money that has been repaid back on the deficit, where it is legally required to go.

So many ideas.

Then, once you get the spending under control, you boost the economy. Much like an immune system that is connected and joined with the body to promote it’s health, you also have the capitalistic system which naturally promotes opportunity for the private sector. It works with the system, not against it. And that, in turn, creates tax revenues.

Obama could give the capitalistic system a B-12 boost. Try private sector incentives, instead of taxes. Cut government regulations for businesses and entrepreneurs. Remove the regulatory obstacles for companies to grow. Promote energy production that we’ve already got in place, like oil and gas. Remove burdensome taxes on small businesses so they can hire more employees, thus building the American work force. And get the heck out of the way.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

Oh, he’s not agnostic. He’s a true believer in tax increases. In fact, you could even call him a tax fundamentalist.

What his religion refuses to accept, however, is the depth and breadth of the American people’s anathema about economic slavery. But that’s okay. Soon, very soon, he will either have a coming to Jesus moment or find his policies exorcised.