The original debt-reduction plan proposed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles (D-N.C.) generally won plaudits from pundits, which always struck me as a shame. It was, to be sure, well to the left of anything Republicans would even consider, but it was also well to the right of what seems desirable, especially on Social Security.
Indeed, the Simpson-Bowles plan generally seemed more focused on reducing the size of government for the sake of an ideological agenda than reducing the long-term debt to meet any specific fiscal need.
Regardless, Republicans on the Simpson-Bowles commission refused to compromise and the chairmen's report was never seriously pursued. Two years later, however, Simpson and Bowles have unveiled a sequel, which, like the original, intends to reduce the debt by about $5 trillion over the next 10 years. So it's more of the same? Not exactly -- take a look at this chart from Derek Thompson.
The original Simpson-Bowles plan aimed for some semblance of balance, though spending cuts topped revenue. The new Simpson-Bowles plan, however, is entirely one-sided, leaning heavily in Republicans' favor.
I'd like to go into more detail as to how and why these proponents crafted their plan this way, but in an odd twist, Simpson and Bowles published their new plan with hardly any numbers in it. In fact, it's probably a mistake to call this an actual "plan," when it's more of an outline. I know roughly how much they want to cut, but as is the case with Republican rhetoric in general, I don't know where the cuts would occur or by how much.
There have been plenty of debt-reduction packages put together over the last couple of years, but the new Simpson-Bowles proposal is the vaguest. It's not encouraging.
As I understand it, the original goal of Simpson and Bowles was to spread the pain around, creating a plan that neither side would love, but which would tried to make everyone feel the pinch in roughly the same quantities. Democrats and Republicans would complain, but they could stomach the package, the argument went, knowing that their rivals were sacrificing just about as much as they were.
With Simpson-Bowles 2.0, that goal appears to have vanished altogether. Instead we see a vague plan that leans heavily -- almost self-consciously -- in one party's direction, while setting a new debt-reduction goal for reasons the report's authors fail to mention.
I'm not sure who's supposed to be influenced by an unbalanced plan like this one, but I have a strong hunch it won't make any legislative progress anytime soon.
Update: Thompson's original chart had some errors, so I swapped it out for this corrected version. I've also clarified the text of my post accordingly.
Leave a Comment:
If there aren't any numbers in your economic plan, then how does it work? Voodoo?
Well, you know those repubs love that voodoo economics. They'll love this!
If there aren't any numbers in your plan . . . then it isn't a plan. It's little more than a philosophy.
And isn't "philosophy" generally how the GOTP operate?
"There have been plenty of debt-reduction packages put together over the last couple of years, but the new Simpson-Bowles proposal is the vaguest." Even more vague than the Romney/Ryan "we'll find the savings, just elect us and trust us, by the way what's your PIN?" plan? That is some serious vagueness.
As as been pointed out, their "philosophy" is that we must screw all old people, and the poor. Shared sacrifice, you know -- shared amongst those with the least.
$2.9 + $2.6 in the first graphic equals $5.5 trillion. Where's that extra trillion dollars going?
Now that Obama cut 2.5T and increased revenues by only 600B, it would appear that a lot more revenue is needed to even get near the first plan. But it appears that the new plan moves the goal posts with cuts and revenue. Simpson-Bowles has lost any claim to credibility when it comes out with a new plan that significantly changes the original plan. They should have called for more revenues in keeping with the old plan before they even considered another plan.
Let's see some evidence actual cuts have happened.
blanks,
Anyone can post proof until the cows come home and you would make up some excuse to ignore it and even post something from the blaze or other right wing kook site.
Donna, that's the problem no one does what "anyone" could do. Post some proof of the 2.5 trillion dollars in spending cuts. We've spent more money each year. Cutting in one area and spending more in another is not a budget cut either.
Even the Left leaning Center for American Progress (run by former Obama and Clinton staffer) puts the spending cuts by Obama at 1.5 trillion.
Put your source where your mouth is...stand up to the challenge...back up your own words and position, just once or forever be just a naysayer. Rise to the occasion, meet the moment...come on you can do it!
The proof is HERE:
Here are the FACTS:
Since the start of fiscal year 2011, Congress and the president have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about $300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/
That is my source, douchebag.
But you are so smart you could have found it for yourself but it doesn't fit your lies.
And this is who you are and what you stand for:
The republican replacement plan was called the Spending Reduction Act of 2012 and of course it eliminated the cuts to Defense spending. They replaced them with the following:
Why don't you rise to the occasion, troll.
What is interesting in looking at the chart is that it's like they accepted Obama's revenue proposals as is and then darn near trippled the republicans spending proposals. I think SB may realize its much more likely for Dem's to move than GOPers.
So in other words, they agree with the pre-election pundits in accepting it as unchangeable fact rather than a dangerous deficiency that Republicans will be unwilling to compromise, so they should get everything they want.
That's not what the people voted for. Anyone who believes that the only answer is to give Republicans what they want, regardless of what the voters want, doesn't believe in democracy.
I think these two clowns only want more air time. Neither of their plans have any merit.
This is too vague to be useful. Does the GOP have a new plan/proposal, all of the sudden, or is this the plan that was passed in the House in the last (now gone) Congress?
Tell these old coots to retire from public life gracefully.
Those old coots (Simpson-Bowles, et al) were "hired" by the President, weren't they?
S/B headed a commission to determine the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to balance the budget. There was no "report" issued by the commission because not enough members supported any one plan. What is best-known as the "Simpson-Bowles" plan merely consists of what Simpson and Bowles agreed on.
This plan, S/B 2.0, was produced by S&B acting solely on their own.
Sorry, but both the Obama and the GOP plans are too small. Both seem to save 2 to 3 Trillion over the ten years. That's 200-300 Billion a year. And the current deficits are 4 to 5 times larger than that. Starting with GWB, we have dug a deep deep hole. President Obama commissioned Simpson-Bowles for this reason. Now if he was serious about it, then there has to be cuts along with revenue. And to me a couple Trillion over ten years won't cut it. AND REMEMBER, these "savings" are not cuts so much - they are just less in future spending. It will not even touch the debt, which will continue to climb. We cannot just tax our way out of this. NO way.
What part of the fact that making "deep cuts now" will destroy the economic recovery don't you understand?
As the economy continues to improve, a decrease in Federal spending related to the Great Recession will decrease. There will also be an increase in Federal revenues based solely on the improving economy. Add to that a 10% reduction in DoD spending for FY 2014-15 and another 10% reduction in the next FY. Then subtract the costs of Iraq, already decreasing, and those in Afghanistan as that war is wound down.
Then we can start in the grossly over-staffed and under-performing Homeland Security Agency. All the while, while the costs of Medicare/Medicaid will continue to increase, those increases will come closer and closer to the actual inflation rate and not the fevered imaginings/desires of those in the private HCI companies.
Not to worry, the Democrats will pull the Republicans' sorry *sses out of the mud for them - again!
I'd note that the GOP plan is about 3 to 2 spending cuts over revenue while the SB2 ratio is around 2.8 to 1...it leans well beyond "i the GOP's favor."
SB1 had a ratio of 8 to 5.
The first thing we should do is raise taxes on the rich to the levels they were pre-Reagan. See where our finances are after that and adjust from there.
"There have been plenty of debt-reduction packages put together over the last couple of years, but the new Simpson-Bowles proposal is the vaguest..."
I'd have to disagree, Bonehead keeps talking about the "plan" the House has yet he hasn't produced one and my "google searches" haven't produced one for them either. So while Simpson-Bowles may be "vague", it's not invisible like the House plan Bonehead keeps going on about - that's the vaguest....
Stranger still when one looks at the history of our national debt.
Republicans have always spent tons of money ,mostly on defense or some private contract job, yet they have also been quick to cut revenue, mostly by giving breaks to big business and the wealthy.
Do the insane tea party members think for one minute that they will some how benefit from the policies they have been told to back?Yeah, but then that takes into the education problem.
Best plan or not can we just start somewhere............please.....and stop pointing fingers and blaming both parties. Just F'n do something
Before we can start doing anyhting, Republicans have to first admit they have a problem.
That problem? Republican politicians win elections based on votes cast by millions of citizens, but it's only the beneficiaries of "Citizen's United" that those same politicians take notice of and represent.
Federal budget compared to a family budget to put things in perspective
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $12,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $165,710
Budget cuts: $916
The cuts are 2.4% of current spending.
I believe mom and dad need an extra job and the family needs to rein in spending and start to take a serious look at their credit card debt.
Except there is no real comparison to a family budget. If we used that analogy, the credit card would be a home mortgage.
We do however, need more jobs in this country. That would probably fix it as long as we didn't think we should pay off the mortgage in a couple of years. We could realize military spending would decrease as we exit Afghanistan and cut waste after economy stabilizes. We need economic stably instead of the continual crisis we have thanks to Congress shirking their duties in favor of blaming for election spin.
The 2.0 S.B. bill sounds like bait and switch. Great, more games. Snark.
Actually, the main flaw in this thinking (16.0) is that the income would be static. In fact, U.S. revenue is primarily from income taxes, and those go down in recessions and up in boom times. The best thing the government can do to increase revenues is to get more people back to work. This also saves money, with not as much unemployment being paid out.
And of course, everyone should be paying their fair share, not some artificially low rate with abundant loopholes so that the burden falls heavily on those with the least means to contribute.
One of these days even the most backward among us will realize that trying to compare a family budget to the national budget is silly. The two things are just completely different and the only similarity is that they both deal with money. But that day is a long time coming.
One more time:
Families are consumers of currency, the US is a producer of currency.
Families can't collect taxes.
Families can't print money.
Families don't own the world's reserve currency, the one everyone does business in and wants to own.
Families can't issue debt that everyone wants to buy, even at ridiculously low interest rates, because they know it's the safest investment on the planet (even as some in DC threaten to trash our credit rating).
Of course the federal budget is not comparable to a family budget but the same math applies. You can not continue infinitely creating more and more debt. There is only so much you can tax. There is only so much money you can print before what you print becomes worthless. Etc, etc, etc.
To just dismiss the comparison as foolishness is not accurate either.
OK. It's late, but I guess tomorrow I'm going to have to discuss "we owe the money to ourselves," and "with growth, normal inflation will make the debt worth less." The same math does not apply.
Meanwhile, there is no inflation in sight. Inflation comes from demand. No demand, no inflation. Our currency isn't even close to being worthless. Who said anything about infinite? More fear-mongering based on willful ignorance.
Cheney channeling Reagan: "Deficits don't matter."
dkm is right. Economics ain't beanball. Props to JL, too.
Another plan that provides confusion for the hard working class American. I'm concerned we are allowing rich gurus to provide an economic strategy that effects (daily) a population of people they don't really know. You can look at all the latest percentage statistics constructed by economists and pollsters all day but how accurate are they in truth. We elect politicians that are more concern about their party ideology than the America business at hand. Simpson - Bowles, Trump - Romney, (pick your poison) "the American middle-class, and lower income group of citizens are in trouble and we know it. If you haven't guessed or don't it, politicians, once they have served their term in office are set for life. So why worry about passing a little budget, a bill or a law they helps the taxpayers especially when you can give our tax dollars to foreign countries (and nation build) that don't even like us. I would like these so called intelligent politicians to get it done, "no more excuses." GET IT DONE!
See there.
has any one checked what the tax rates were in the 50s & 60s. Those righties would like you to believe that, don't be fooled by there spin. Fix the loop wholes would be at the very least a start. And stop giving companies tax breaks like those in the gas and oil industries.
What are "revenue savings"?
Tax increases! Funny, huh?
This is just another example of crafting language to obscure reality. The trouble is, the low-information voter doesn't know he's being manipulated.
Coupled with Benen's characterization that "spending savings" = "favoring the Republicans" and you've got the low-information voter thinking to himself, "Hmm, saving revenue, yeah, that's like saving money, that's good. Why do the Republicans want to save spending? Republicans just don't make sense."
i have the plan to solve all plans. a think tank just published a report that said that the u.s.a. has over 140 trillion dollars. yes trillion dollars worth of oil and gas on federal lands. so how about we have some oil drillers from china; they would be a lot cheaper than the oil hog companies we have here; come over and drill some wells and over time we will sell them the oil and pay off our debt. we can then continue to pay off everyone else that we owe. mostly ourselves. of course you will say its not that simple, and i say to you it should be that simple. we owe, we pay. of course the oil hogs will want to get involved and i say; gee are you done raping us yet! and they say; not as long as we have all those politicians in our back pocket. i say, you got to be kidding me!
We could start by raising the mineral leasing fees to the market rate for leasing on private land. Republicans love markets. Let's use it here.
That sounds all fine and dandy if you want to turn the Earth into a giant wiffle ball, I don't think that's a good idea. We can live without oil we can't live without water.
The Hamilton County Board of Elections has issued subpoenas to 19 suspects and 9 witnesses for further questioning as a result of months of investigation into potential voter fraud, ABC affiliate WCPO 9 reported on February 6. More than 80 individuals in Hamilton County allegedly voted multiple times in the November 2012 election, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported weeks after election day.
Madisonville resident and long-time poll worker Melowese Richardson
According to local media, the Hamilton County Board of Elections winnowed the number of suspected fraud cases down as official investigators determined most of the double votes were cast due to misunderstandings, mostly made by elderly voters who voted absentee and voted again by provisional ballot at their polling places.
Section 3599.15 of the Ohio Revised Code dictates that “no person shall […] vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election by any means, including voting or attempting to vote both by absent voter’s ballots […] and by regular ballot at the polls at the same election, or voting or attempting to vote both by absent voter’s ballots.”
In what may be the most visible of the voter fraud cases being investigated by authorities, Melowese Richardson, a Madisonville resident and long-time elections volunteer, allegedly voted up to six times for Barack Obama.
According to records, Richardson voted using an absentee ballot on November 1, and then voted again on Election Day. Richardson also forged ballots in the names of family members, casting ballots for grand-daughter India Richardson, Montez Richardson, Joseph Jones and Markus Barron.
Witnesses recalled that Richardson “was disruptive and hid things from the [poll] workers on elections,” adding that the “supplemental list” of voters who have already voted absentee in the precinct is missing and that workers at the polling place in question, the Madisonsville Recreation Center, failed to note which voters on the list had already voted.
Richardson explained to WCPO-TV 9 reporters that she thought that what she did was legal, vowing to “fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States.”
Several other investigations are pending, as the board must meet to determine which cases should be submitted to the county prosecutor.
The cases include those of a Tennessee woman who voted in Ohio’s elections while she was visiting her mother in Cincinnati, multiple voters who provided vacant or nonexistent addresses, and an unknown individual falsely signing into the polling place and casting a ballot under a registered voter’s name.
In another case being investigated, an individual allegedly voted in the name of a dead voter during in-person absentee voting prior to election day. During the 2012 campaign season, the Ohio Democratic Party, President Obama’s re-election campaign, and progressive activist groups successfully lobbied for more permissive early voting rules and procedures.
i put simpson-bowles in the same category as caddell-schoen when it comes to seriousness.
And you must think Robert Shrum is a genius???
Of course he ran Michael Dukakis's and John Kerry's campaigns
L.M.A.O.
Another really smart Republican plan. Cut spending by laying people off which most will get unemployment (75% of their salary) but the government gets no work in return. After a few months they realize we need these people (more than we need congress). We could let congress and the house go but there would be no need in bring them back.
If it is the Sequester- wasn't that plan actually proposed and pushed by Obama? Rhetorical because it obviously was.
Rusty you don't have to agree, but I have done my homework on this, they all have their fingerprints on the Sequester being in place. This was supposed to scare both parties so that we wouldn't be here. They both agreed, and they're both guilty. Now they need to fix what they agreed on and stop putting America's economic recovery at risk again. People are going to lose jobs, and the government will have to minimize it basic operation capacity just because of the the word "ideology" among elected politicians. I wish they would just realize millions of American citizens will be affected by these constant self-imposed economic crisis.
Truth- I actually agree with what you write. Obama actually conceived it and proposed it, then all sides signed off on it. There has been a curious move on these msnbc blogs to twist it as a Republican plan.