Associated Press
We talked in some detail yesterday about the flaws in the latest debt-reduction plan from former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles (D-N.C.), the folks celebrated by the political/media establishment as sage voices on fiscal issues for reasons I've never been able to identify. The Simpson-Bowles 2.0 plan probably isn't going anywhere, but before we move on, Tim Noah flags a detail I'd overlooked.
It turns out, in their drive to reduce deficits, Simpson and Bowles want to lower tax rates, replacing the revenue with scaling back "most" tax expenditures. It's not unreasonable to wonder why in the world the so-called deficit hawks would do this.
Lowering income-tax rates while eliminating tax breaks would, Simpson and Bowles say, achieve some unspecified quantity of deficit savings. But if your aim is to reduce the deficit, why not get rid of as many tax expenditures as you can while leaving tax rates constant -- or, better yet, raising them a bit? Simpson and Bowles would likely say they're just being realistic about politics. Republicans won't eliminate loopholes unless they can lower rates, too.
But as long as we're being realistic, why not be realistic about the likelihood that a lower-rates-for-fewer-loopholes swap will reduce the deficit? Which is about zero. Simpson and Bowles's insistence on clinging to the tax-reform fantasy demonstrates that their agenda is not limited to deficit reduction. They also want to lower tax rates. Why? They just want to, is all.
Quite right. One of the long-standing complaints against Simpson-Bowles is that their debt-reduction plan isn't solely about reducing the debt. The fact that their newest blueprint cuts taxes, for no apparent, reinforces the concerns.
In the broadest possible sense, there are limited options when it comes to reducing Washington's budget shortfall: the federal government can collect more revenue, it can spend less money, or it can try to strike a balance between the two. If a plan brings in less revenue, on purpose, then it moves further from the intended goal, not closer to it.
Simpson-Bowles seems to accept the basic premise, but nevertheless wants to devote some new revenue from vague tax-reform measures, not to reducing the deficit, but to more tax cuts.
Worse, they make this recommendation without explanation. Perhaps they think it's obvious that tax cuts are a good idea.
And if they want to make that case, fine, we can have the debate and point to the flaws in their assumption. But let's not keep up the charade that Simpson-Bowles is purely about fiscal responsibility, when there's also clearly a conservative ideological goal underpinning parts of the outline.
Leave a Comment:
Another fine idea, smothered by conservative counterfactual dogma.
Isn't what this duo entertaining the very same thing Bush the Elder called Voodoo economics? Why do "conservatives" keep trying to turn the rest of us into zombies? -Kevo
This is just another backdoor endorsement of austerity...the thing no one ever mentions is whose "Austerity" that actually is...
If you look at this stuff in a broad context there seems to be a very real and concerted effort to make the poor even poorer.
Lately the meme on the right has been all about "Makers, Takers & free stuff" when the simple reality is that the poor actually pay for the meager level of subsistence support they receive and at a proportionally higher rate versus their actual labor than do the wealthy or even the middle class.
somehow we have allowed "Income Tax" to take center stage and to wear the crown of being the all important defining issue when it shouldn't.
Consider this just as a simple matter of percentages...if what Mitt Romney said is "True" and that 47% of Americans pay no income tax but you take that and set it opposite the cost of living below, at or near poverty and further compare that to reward for actual labor then you very quickly come to the realization that being "Poor" in this country is very, very expensive.
It is utterly ridiculous for people sitting in ivory towers of socioeconomic comfort and stability to opine that they are ill-used in being required to provide a minimum of support to the society that supports them.
Can this pair please recede into the deepest memory holes? Or, simply just go away? Can we quit pretending that Erskine Bowles represents the Democratic side of things, or has any social conscience?
The kindest interpretation I can give this is that Messrs. Simpson and Bowles would claim that "lowering the rates and broadening the base" would spur the growth fairy and thereby reduce the deficit. But I don't know of any compelling reason to think that's the case.
That experiment has been run over the last 13 years and has failed miserably. Simpson and Bowles have moved from "economic theory" to wishful thinking.
Ron, that experiment dates back to the days of Reagan...the idea that if you cut revenue, you will magically create even more revenue. It is the whole basis of supply side economics, that piece of intellectual dishonesty that should have died years ago due to copious data that showed that it not only doesn't work, but actually ends up creating a monstrous deficit. Unfortunately, there are still millions of people out there who can't learn this basic fact, even when there is enough data out there to prove it to sink a battleship.
Why is this even a conversation? Why would anyone have any interest in what a spiteful and mean spirited retired white guy from WY, a state that gave us dicko and just raised the gas tax a record 10 cents per gal. Or a old white guy from the south that has never been anything but a complete flake with no understanding of anything national and completely screwed up his UNCCH appointment. I think the real question is why would PBO think these hacks could do anything for the people who work hard in this country...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_Bowles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_K._Simpson
What business in turnaround mode has said part of its recovery plan was to reduce revenue in order to reduce debt?
erskine bowles not only resembles a spineless dweed, he is the epitome of one.
the credibility of simpson-bowles rivals that of caddell-schoen.
and Abbott and Costello...
And to imagine an actual paid off Democrat thinking up such dumb crap too. Apparently, Erskine Bowles (D-N.C.) must be the typical rich bastard plant again. Looks like some people will do about anything just to get a fast buck, get rich, and sell out to rich bastards at the very cost of the middle class and poor.
In the stories I've seen on this no one seems to remember that Simpson & Bowles are the co-chairs of "Fix the Debt" - the coalition sponsored by corporate CEOs - any wonder they are all of a sudden promoting more spending cuts and lower taxes?
Does this really surprise anyone who remembers that B&S are co-chairs of CEO driven "Fix the Debt" coalition? Haven't seen the connection in any of the stories so far on their latest attempt to get their way.
So far all the government has done is collect more revenue. Taxes have been raised. There has been no reduction in spending, so no balance as of yet. Obama's idea of balance is tax and spend. He shows no sign of cutting spending. The only way spending will be cut is if the sequester takes place.
If they were pastors of a church, would Simpson and Bowles advise their parishioners to stop putting money in the collection basket, as a means to cut back on church administrative costs, and those pesky donations to the local soup kitchen, Heifer International, and Habitat for Humanity?
hey does anyone at all on this web page remember it was Obama who said no to closing the llopholes to the wealthiest americans and instead wanted to raise their taxes... umm I think I remember Obama saying that... and whoa he got higher taxes on the rich... now he flip flops again and wants to close their loophole.... you go Obama. hes gonna go down in history as the most taxing president in history. tax tax tax.... to pay for all his spend spend spend... ohh yea he will also go down in history as the most spending president... ohh and his great choice of moral and family people to hang out with... tiger woods... lol