Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:50 AM ET, 12/ 2/2010

The best critique of Bowles-Simpson

By E.J. Dionne

What bothers me most about the way Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are trying to sell their deficit reduction plan is their implication that they have come up with a singularly fair and reasonable way to stave off a fiscal disaster they describe in the starkest terms. There's a moralism in their rhetoric implying that if you don't sign on with their way of doing things, you are sending the country off into never-never land. In fact, there are many different paths to fiscal responsibility, including far more progressive approaches -- see, for example, the report prepared jointly by the Economic Policy Institute, Demos and the Century Foundation. Deficit reduction is about tradeoffs, and, on the whole, Bowles and Simpson have made a rather conservative set of choices.

This is not to say that their plan is devoid of good ideas. I salute them in my column for suggesting that capital gains should be taxed in the same way as ordinary income. Getting that idea back into general circulation would be a significant contribution. But their plan is still far too dependent on spending cuts relative to revenue increases to merit support from progressives.

The best critique of the Bowles-Simpson plan I have run across so far was offered by Robert Greenstein and James Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group that sometimes gets grief from fellow liberals for how serious it is about cutting the deficit. Here's the core of their criticism:

The new proposal remains heavily skewed toward deep program cuts. Such cuts account for 77.5 percent of the proposed policy savings in 2012 through 2015, with revenue increases accounting for less than a quarter of the savings. Budget cuts account for 69 percent of the savings through 2020. A more balanced approach would come closer to an even split.

Because program cuts shoulder such a large share of the burden, the plan contains overly deep and problematic budget cuts (as well as meritorious ones). A 50-50 split between cuts in programs and increases in revenues could have addressed these problems.

The plan also relies on reductions in scheduled Social Security benefits for most of the changes it proposes to ensure the program's long-term solvency. Those benefit cuts outweigh the proposed revenue increases by 2 to 1 over 75 years -- and by 4 to 1 in the 75th year. This does not represent a balanced approach to Social Security reform.

The Center's statement credits Bowles and Simpson for having "performed a valuable service in educating policymakers and the public about the need for tough medicine to tackle this problem, and for putting specific proposals on the table rather than empty rhetoric." But Greenstein and Horney conclude: "Unfortunately, their product remains seriously flawed." They are right on both counts.

By E.J. Dionne  | December 2, 2010; 9:50 AM ET
Categories:  Dionne  | Tags:  E.J. Dionne  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: So much for kumbaya
Next: Obama's offshore drilling reversal -- yes, there are politics

Comments

E.J. Dionne repackages a familiar Democratic refrain: "Government needs more money! It's cruel to reduce government spending increases! Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

Doesn't this ever get old for you E.J.?

Posted by: pilsener | December 2, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Best way to save is called collective buying!!! search online for "Printapons" every day a local business will be featured and prices will be discounted upto
90% off

Posted by: cherylpowell1 | December 3, 2010 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com'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