The Washington Catfood Massacre, Part 2

Kevin Drum throws the kitty kibble in the trashcan.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

There are other reasons the Simpson-Bowles plan isn't serious. Capping revenue at 21% of GDP, for example. The plain fact is that over the next few decades Social Security will need a little more money and healthcare will need a lot more. That will be true even if we implement the greatest healthcare cost containment plan in the world. Pretending that we can nonetheless cap revenues at 2000 levels isn't serious.

And their tax proposal? As part of a deficit reduction plan they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the federal tax system more regressive? That's not serious either.

Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.

And really, capping revenues is the dead giveaway the Simpson-Bowles plan is all Cato think tank hogwash. To put it even more succinctly, it's an austerity plan.  One that happens to include tax cuts for the wealthy and increasing the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon on the rest of us.

But the worst part about all this is that unless the President immediately comes out and says these two jokers are full of crap, this will become "the President's plan to cut Social Security and raise taxes on the middle class" in every Republican attack ad heading into 2012, and frankly it probably will anyway.  It's not like voters are interested in the truth.  (Obama's a Kenyan Muslim, you know.)

So what does Obama say instead?

"Before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts. I think we have to be straight with the American people."

Brilliant.  And it gets better.

"I set up this commission precisely because I'm prepared to make some tough decisions. I can't make them alone. I'm going to need Congress to work with me," he said. "The only way to make those tough choices historically has been if both parties are willing to move forward together."

And I'm sure the Republicans will be happy to back you on these cuts, Mr. President.  They won't make you walk the plank and face the wrath of the voters in 2012 or anything.  Scout's honor!

And as far as the firebagger contingent of the Democratic party?  Why I'm sure they'll fall right into line just like they did this year. 


There's a reason why Republicans refused to give any sort of budget specifics in the lead up to the 2010 elections.  They knew all they had to do was continue to sandbag until this thing exploded in Obama's face, and now they can run as the party of preserving Social Security (and ringing up that debt while we're at it.  Tax cuts don't count because they pay for themselves!)


It's going to be awesome.