One recurrent theme in the commentary over the House Progressive Caucus?s budget proposal is that it?s not getting much attention because it?s too liberal, or it raises taxes too much, or it doesn?t cause seniors enough pain. I don?t buy it. The answer, I think, is more boring, and perhaps, more depressing. The focus is on what might pass ? or at least what might be relevant in the upcoming argument over what might pass. It?s not on what might work.
The Ryan budget is now the Republican position in the coming fiscal debate. President Obama?s budget proposal is expected to be the other side of that negotiation, and so it?s gotten lots of coverage, as well. The House Progressive Caucus?s proposal, whether you think it?s good or bad, doesn?t have an obvious place in that argument, and so it?s not getting much coverage.
It?s worth saying that it?s not alone in that. The Republican Study Committee?s budget proposal ? Democratic hijinks aside -- has been ignored, too. But a better example, perhaps, is the proposal developed by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which is easily the most thoughtful, detailed and credible deficit reduction plan on the table ? and which has also been ignored in favor of a bevy of plans that are much less specific and persuasive.
Reading the commission?s report is unlike reading any of the other proposals: The policies are described at length, with possible counter-arguments explained and considered. For instance, in the section explaining the commission?s value-added tax, it admits that ?the main objections raised to a national sales tax of this type are that it is regressive; it interferes with a revenue source that has historically been used exclusively by the states; and it would be a hidden tax that would facilitate excessive growth in government spending. However, these problems are either overstated or surmountable.? It then goes on to give a reasonable account of why some of those problems are overstated or why or how the BPC?s proposal addresses them. I don?t like everything in their plan, but it?s really just playing at a different level than the other contenders.
But the BPC?s proposal, despite being decidedly bipartisan and endorsed by all manner of Beltway elites, has also gotten very little attention. In fact, it?s gotten a lot less attention than the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which is weaker on almost every dimension. Why? Well, the Simpson-Bowles proposal got the votes of Dick Durbin, Tom Coburn and other currently serving lawmakers. The BPC?s proposal didn?t. The Simpson-Bowles proposal has been adopted by the Gang of Six. The BPC?s proposal hasn?t. And so, day after day, there are new things to say about Simpson-Bowles, and what?s happening with it, while there?s no similar movement on the BPC?s proposal.
It?s a shame, and I?m as culpable as anyone else. Maybe more culpable, because my beat is more policy-centric. But even as I feel guilty about spending so much time on what is happening and so little time on what should be happening, I?ve not really been able to figure out how to continuously cover things that aren?t happening in a way that keeps my readers interested.
Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=6e454d91eed01633f3f416eab414d9a1
Tuition fees Ryan Babel St Lucia Roberto Mancini United Nations Pakistan cricket betting scandal
No comments:
Post a Comment