Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:07 PM ET, 11/18/2010

The failure of Simpson-Bowles

By Ezra Klein

What's odd about the sudden rash of deficit-reduction plans is that they're all being released by members of the Simpson-Bowles commission. Rep. Jan Schakowsky is on the commission, and so too is Alice Rivlin, who co-chaired the group that led to the Bipartisan Policy Group's effort (which, I believe, started its work before the Simpson-Bowles commission).

The point of the Simpson-Bowles commission wasn't full employment for budget wonks. It was consensus. Instead, the Simpson-Bowles commission has led to a further fracturing: The progressives have gone toward Schakowsky, wonkish types have moved toward Rivlin and the BPC, and the center-right has been cautiously supportive of Simpson-Bowles. Some are spinning all this as a different sort of victory. In this telling, Simpson-Bowles has kicked off a healthy discussion. And maybe it is. But it's a failure given the original goals of the project. Far from showing that we can all agree, it's proved that we can't.

By Ezra Klein  | November 18, 2010; 2:07 PM ET
Categories:  Budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lunch Break
Next: Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Vermont stands a chance to be the first state in the nation to pass single-payer'


That may be because Simpson-Bowles, far from being the most reasoned and thought through of proposals, actually was a slap-dash production released only because the details were about to be leaked anyway.
I think that most of the items on the list are dead as a doornail as policy.

Posted by: NYmoose | November 18, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I hear people (mostly liberals) claim the only purpose of this commission was to agree on a plan that could be passed by congress, but I don't see that mentioned in the Executive Order. It seems like it's just an excuse people are using for not agreeing with the suggestions.

Though I don't see it stated anywhere, it was A purpose to find a plan both parties could agree on, but there seems to be some ex post exaggerations of the mandate happening to discredit their report.

Posted by: FroggyJ4 | November 18, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ezra wrote:

"But it's a failure given the original goals of the project. Far from showing that we can all agree, it's proved that we can't."

What a silly statement. That WAS the original goal of the project, to provide political cover for the inability to compromise on deficit reduction.

I despair of you Ezra!

Posted by: 54465446 | November 18, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

It's tough when the president's own commission tells him to STOP SPENDING!

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | November 18, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I would dispute the contention that Simpson-Bowles is more divorced from political reality than the Rivlin report. The Rivlin reports calls for a hefty VAT when in April of this year the Senate voted 85 to 13 to support the statement that "the Senate opposes a Value Added Tax". I might add that several D and R Congressmen have expressed tentative support for Simpson-Bowles. Who now in Congress has backed Rivlin?

Posted by: bdell555 | November 18, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Remember the AmericaSpeaks exercise, those people at town meetings came up with plans, there are numerous websites were you can design your own 50 page powerpoint plan. I am sure bevis and butthead could produce their own plans.

Producing plans is not difficult, it's finding a plan that the American people think is doable and fair, that will pass the congress that is the problem, and that was their assignment.

They have failed miserably.

Posted by: cautious | November 19, 2010 4:19 AM | Report abuse

There IS no plan that can pass Congress. No one, D or R will cut popular programs like Medicare or SS, no one will raise taxes, or EVEN let a temporary tax cut expire as the law enacting it requires.

Posted by: GreenDreams | November 19, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company