Republicans Should Embrace the Deficit Commission Proposals

November 12, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

I’ve been smacked around, by the left and the right, for endorsing the initial proposals of the Simpson-Bowles report. Today I am going to respond to the objections raised by conservatives, like Grover Norquist and our own Peter Roff, who see this plan as a Trojan Horse.

On Monday I will try to reason with the left, who view Simpson-Bowles, with equal vehemence, as a right-wing conspiracy.

Which in itself should tell you something.

It is a tenet of conservative doctrine that man is ruled by self-interest. So here is what conservatives would get if the Democrats and Republicans reached a grand compromise, somewhat along the lines of Simpson-Bowles, to cut some $4 trillion in red ink.

What Al Simpson and Erskine Bowles propose is, basically, a cleaner and more efficient and far less debt-ridden federal government. This is a thorough repair job with nice detailing, not a new car. Call it Status Quo Lite.

[Take our poll: Will the Deficit Commission Chairs' Proposals Work?]

And guess what? Status Quo is pretty good. Despite Glenn Beck’s fearmongering, and the GOP campaign claim that the United States has somehow evolved into a socialist state when the oil companies and hedge funds and banks weren’t looking, the latest rankings by that most Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation, place us ahead of all major rivals, and almost all of our allies, when it comes to economic freedom.

[Read the U.S. News op-ed debate: Should a Balanced Budget Be a Priority for Congress?]

Heritage assesses things like tax burden, business regulation, the rule of law, and corruption. Guess what? The United States stands eighth on that list, behind the controlled city states of Singapore and Hong Kong, three tiny nations—Ireland, Switzerland, and New Zealand--and two bigger democracies, Australia and Canada, that still don’t come close to us in size, complexity, or military spending.

[Read more about the military and national security.]

Are we really a country where invasive bureaucrats terrorize entrepreneurs? No. “The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business, regulated primarily at the state level, is still strongly protected,” Heritage says. “Starting a business takes six days, compared to the world average of 35 days.” We remain the world’s largest producer of manufactured goods, and the fourth-largest producer of agricultural products. Our financial markets are “dynamic,” and property rights are strongly guaranteed.

Heritage does gripe about our tax burden, caused by “relatively high” government spending. But the question is, compared to what? We serve as the cops of the world, keeping everyone from Saudi oil sheiks to Israeli software designers safe enough to get rich. But with all our extra defense costs, total government spending still amounted to just 37.4 percent of GDP.

What was spending like for those ahead and behind us on the list? Well, in Great Britain and Germany the percentage was 44 percent. In New Zealand and Canada it was roughly 40 percent. Japan and Ireland came in at 36 percent, and Australia at 34.2 percent.

Here in Washington, you don’t win votes or campaign donations or ratings by counting the blessings of America. But the fact is, the status quo--in terms of personal and economic freedom--is pretty damn good.

And here is how, for conservatives, Status Quo Lite would make it better.

  1. It would stop runaway deficits. I challenge Norquist, or any other conservative, to come up with plan of their own that cuts $4 trillion from the federal debt and can win popular support.
  2. It honors family by balancing the budget. The annual deficit would be reduced from 9 percent of GDP to 2 percent by 2015. A balanced budget would come within reach around 2030. Over 30 years, the federal debt would be reduced from 62 percent of GDP to 34 percent. We would leave our children and grandchildren a shot at the American dream.
  3. It flattens the tax code. Under one of the proposal’s scenarios (there are several), the plan would chop $1 trillion in tax breaks, credits, and other tax expenditures, do away with the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Earned Income Tax Credit and, as a tradeoff, leave us with individual income tax brackets of 8, 14 and 23 percent. Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp are shouting down from heaven, “Take the deal! Take the deal!”
  4. It cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 26 percent, making our businesses that much more competitive with our foreign competitors. That means profits. That means jobs. [Read more about unemployment.]
  5. It would cap federal taxes, and spending, at 21 percent of GDP. With discipline at the state and local level, that would leave our total government spending roughly where it is now, and keep us in the top 10 in the Heritage rankings for economic freedom.
  6. It saves Social Security and takes it off the table for another 75 years. If, for ideological reasons, some Republicans still wish to push ahead with the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, and lose the votes of all those senior citizens who just gave them control of the House of Representatives, they should, by all means, go ahead. But more realistic conservatives may agree that the commission’s deal includes significant cost and benefit cuts, under a bipartisan umbrella. 
  7. It requires huge concessions from government unions. The plan would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and freeze salaries and bonuses for three years. It would also cut civil service pensions, reduce the White House and congressional budget by 15 percent, cap discretionary spending and eliminate 250,000 government contractors.
  8. It would eliminate all earmarks. I understand that Republican incumbents and even some Tea Party turncoats are stealthily plotting to keep the earmark process intact in Congress, but this is a professed goal of at least some conservatives.
  9. It would reduce healthcare costs. The Simpson-Bowles proposal would cap federal healthcare expenditures at GDP plus 1 percent, while paying doctors their coveted “doc fix” and squeezing trial lawyers via tort reform.

Remember, this isn’t even the commission report yet. It is just the chairman’s mark, as they say in Washington: a proposal from which to begin the discussion. Having just won a big election, conservatives would have momentum going into the horse-trading.

[See a slide show of 5 winners and losers in election 2010.]

Does Simpson-Bowles have bite? Why else would the know-it-alls and elites and lobbyists and vested interests here in Washington be so quick to declare it “dead on arrival” or unappetizing cat food, or spinach? They want the game to go on. They own the bazaar.

A problem in America is that we increasingly self-select. Liberals talk to liberals and watch MSNBC. Conservatives talk to conservatives and watch Fox.

I am sure there are honest, patriotic, conservative Americans who believe that we are heading down the road to perdition and, talking among themselves, think that--given more time and a big enough push and more militant leaders--they can actually bring the American system back to where it was in the Roaring Twenties, under Calvin Coolidge.

Folks: it’s not going to happen. There are whole regions and segments of the population--last time I looked about 50 or 60 percent--who believe just as passionately, sincerely, and patriotically that the government is better than the markets at certain tasks of safeguarding liberty and equality. They are not going to cave in any more than you would. But they can be forced, in a pressing crisis, to deal.

Tea Partyers in particular should embrace the Simpson-Bowles report. It reduces debt. It stops the drift toward socialism. It puts us on a path to a balanced budget. If Sarah Palin or some other conservative champion were truly smart, they would embrace this baby and flog the Democratic and Republican elites of Washington for standing in its way, and take power with a mandate to force real change in 2012. Mr. Daniels? Mr. Bloomberg?

[Check out our editorial cartoons on the Tea Party.]

Take it from me, Republicans. You won’t win this one by listening to my old pal Grover. We are in too deep not to do this without raising taxes.

Take the deal. Or, if you like, move to Singapore. And Australia, I hear, has great beer and fine-looking gals and lads and lots of empty real estate.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
national security terrorism and the military,
Tea Party,
2010 Congressional elections,
Glenn Beck,
MSNBC,
Fox News,
social security,
government,
Congress,
taxes,
Republican Party,
deficit and national debt,
GDP,
healthcare,
healthcare reform,
Heritage Foundation,
Sarah Palin,
unemployment,
Grover Norquist

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As for the CBO quote in Bill's comment, you should check out some more of the CBO's docs, including but not limited to the following -

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

- TORT REFORM WOULD WORK? no way! So, why doesn't our president try that before uprooting our infrastructure with a plan that will cost unfathomable amounts of taxpayer dollars and may not even work?

And one my favorites:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11689/Stark_Letter-HR_5808-07-22.pdf

CBO estimates a "$27 billion increase in tax revenues that would result from changes in employment-based coverage." How? Here's how.

"Two developments would result in a greater share of employees’ compensation taking the form of taxable wages and salaries (rather than nontaxable health benefits), thereby resulting in higher federal tax revenues. First, because the public plan would make the exchanges more attractive to individual purchasers, some employers would forgo offering coverage altogether, thus reducing their spending on employment-based health insurance (relative to current-law projections) and increasing the share of compensation devoted to taxable wages and salaries. (As noted above, the proposal’s net effect would be to slightly reduce the number of people with employment-based coverage.) Second, the availability of a relatively inexpensive public plan would also lead some employers to purchase lower-cost coverage for their employees through the exchanges. The resulting reduction in spending on employment-based coverage would further increase the share of total compensation devoted to taxable wages and salaries."

So the CBO wants employers to reduce coverage and add the difference to salaries (taxable income) so the gov can get some more tax money out of us. Apparently, health benefits being UNTAXABLE are a bad thing in the eyes of our government. Lovely. Really lovely. Makes me feel so safe and protected by my president.

As for the claim that Simpson-Bowles is not bipartisan - well, NOW look who's refusing to compromise and screaming NO NO NO. First, there is the obvious fact that Simpson is a Repub and Bowles is a Dem. I'd say that's a good start for potential bipartisanship. Everyone wants to balance budget. Everyone wants to create jobs. Why does cutting the corporate tax AUTOMATICALLY get written off as a bad thing by you liberals? Why is it as soon as you hear "tax cut" you automatically refuse to hear the rest of the story? Can you give a reason why the corporate tax cut won't contribute to generating profits and creating jobs? Or do you care less about jobs and more about taxing the hell out of "rich people" that you don't believe are entitled to money earned through a day's work? Keep your eyes on your own paycheck, mister! Quit refusing to even THINK about policies solely because there is a support from the right. Isn't it a little hypocritical to oppose something "non bipartisan" merely because republicans are involved?

DM of NJ 1:55PM November 16, 2010

Cut cooperate tax and create jobs. How often I quote John F. Kennedy saying similar sentiment. John, are you becoming a John F. Kennedy conservative ? Temporarily, I’m raising the rating on your stock.

We have the second highest cooperate tax for industrialized Nations. By reducing tax, more activity leads to jobs as well as more government revenue. Instead of paying unemployment insurance, unemployed become tax payers. So helping the rich help the worker. Tax cuts of Kennedy & Reagan along with G.W. Bush gave us the longest Bull Market in our history. A treat for rich, worker, and government.

John A. Farrell referred to Heritage. Here is more Heritage:

“The tax cuts of the 1920s”

“The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928“.

“The Kennedy tax cuts”

“Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.”

“The Reagan tax cuts”

“The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.”

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

“Heritage in Focus: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth”

http://blog.heritage.org/tag/2001-tax-cuts/

“Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts”

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

When rich get tax cuts they take the money out of hiding & invest.

However, obama has created a very unfriendly business atmosphere. Government large debt starves the private sector of money. New business has difficult time obtaining cash. Cooperation will open up their own pocketbooks with a friendly business government. Tax cuts a good start.

The tie to GDP forget. Many factors affect that. Keep government spending lowered until debt do we pay.

Many times tax income increased from tax cuts has been spoiled by spending the extra revenue. Is how liberals deny the Kennedy phenomenal, cut tax for rich and increase government revenue.

So John, are you now for Bush tax cuts to the rich to continue ?

Bill Hedges of MO 4:57AM November 14, 2010

Bowles-Simpson "Bi-partisan" Deficit Commission is a scam:

1. Recommendations weren't generated, according to Fiscal Commission Charter & By-Laws, by "judgment and views" of 18 bi-partisan members. They were generated by Co-Chairs, a small cabal of GOP & Blue Dog Democrats & anti-Social Security Concord Coalition.

2. Recos were not reviewed by 18 members prior to release to media and American public, or subjected to requisite 14-vote approval. Annoyed members are already on record stating disapproval with many recommendations.

3. Concord Coalition "dedicated to educating the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs.." was one of 90 groups to make presentations on June 30. Track the presentation to Bowles-Simpson Draft?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/meetings/public-forum/1/Robert_Bixby_6_30_2010.pdf

3. Deficit Commission documents, meeting minutes, website make no special reference to Concord Coalition. But CC website has section dedicated to Commission & features 8 "Fiscal Commission Updates" issued between April 26 & Nov 12, and Bowles-Simpson publicity is featured under "Concord in the News"!

http://www.concordcoalition.org...

CC release issued on Nov 2, " Bipartisan Panels' Recommendations Could Provide an Antidote for Ill-advised Campaign Rhetoric", a week prior to Bowles-Simpson media blitz, suggests CC knew more about Commission's recommendations than the actual Commission!

4. Commission Charter says zero about releasing exclusively created draft recos to media & public BEFORE Commission members or Congress have a chance to see/review/approve. On Nov 10, Co-Chairs Bowles-Simpson staged 'guerilla' press conference & media blitz...when Pres was conveniently in Asia.

David Axelrod said WH found out 1 hour before it started and he had to download the Draft recommendations off internet! Commission members were similarly sideswiped. Not Pete Peterson, Concord Coalition founder; he issued a statement re Draft on Nov 10 to coincide with press event & CC issued a Nov 11 release. How did he/they know when Commission members didn't?

http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2010/11/10/Draft-Proposal-by-the-Co-Chairs-of-the-National-Commission-on-Fiscal-Responsibility-and-Reform.aspx

http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-releases/2010/1111/concord-coalition-applauds-bowles-simpson-deficit-reduction-framework

5.Bowles-Simpson Draft is 80% conservative Concord Coalition - there's little of more progressive thinking like excellent Economic Policy Institute recommendations:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/meetings/public-forum/1/John_Irons_6_30_2010.pdf

6. Judd Gregg (R-NH), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Tom Coburn (R-OK) had prior connection to CC.

Before getting into the recommendations, the public has a right to transparency on this Commission - an investigation should be done.

Truthfairy of NY 2:52PM November 13, 2010

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Latest Videos

advertisement