The debt commission: Bowles and Simpson point to the political solution
At a Monitor breakfast with reporters, the chairmen of the presidential debt commission say that lawmakers will finally cut the deficit either because of a crisis or because they're listening to one another. Let's hope it is the latter.
Sometimes the Monitor hosts a newsmaker breakfast that is so meaty and of such national import that all Americans – and not just invited reporters – ought to be able to see it. Today’s eggs-and-bacon offering, with “presidential debt commission” chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, was such a breakfast.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
You can view the whole thing below, but what stood out was the two men’s views on how to solve the politics of the deficit and debt problem.
Budget and finance experts can calculate various solutions, as have the two chairmen in a hard-nosed draft released last week. But in the end, it is politicians who must finally pick up the deficit and debt “stink bomb,” as Republican co-chair Simpson calls it.
What will bring them to do that?
The newly elected Congress is more polarized than the last. Many conservative Democrats lost, while tea-party-backed candidates won. Compromise seems further away than ever, especially if lawmakers choose to focus on the next elections instead of the dire warnings about this debt ruining the economy.
Then there are the radioactive elements of budget cutting itself. Everyone wants to reduce the debt, but not if it hits their wallet or particular political interest.
The Bowles-Simpson draft, which is being debated by the 18-member commission, would substantially reduce the deficit, cutting almost $4 trillion between 2012 and 2020. Three-quarters of that would be spending cuts, and a quarter, tax readjustments.
That’s a sensible proportion and the sacrifice is evenly spread. Except for the truly disadvantaged, pretty much everyone’s wallet gets hit.
But so far, Americans don’t like that.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows big majorities opposed to the draft report's suggested changes to Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, and taxes. The draft suggests killing off tax deductions, including the popular ones for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
But Mr. Bowles suggests a constructive way to view this dire step.
Think of tax deductions as earmarks, hidden pork that does not necessarily accomplish its intended purpose. These “earmarks” of the tax code, however, cost the nation $1 trillion a year; the normal earmarks done by Congress cost only $16 billion.
The draft does not take away without offering something in return: a lowering of income tax rates. Meanwhile, America would again become attractive to businesses by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 to 26 percent.