You can imagine a balanced argument over the deficit taking one of two forms. In the first case, both parties could agree that the desired result was deficit reduction, and so they could both propose ideologically modest plans that raised taxes and cut spending. Perhaps the Democrats would raise taxes by a bit more than the Republicans, and perhaps the Republicans would cut spending by a bit more than the Democrats, but ultimately, the two proposals would look broadly similar to the plan released by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
You could also imagine an argument in which both parties agree that the mounting deficit is an opportunity for a radical rethinking of the size, shape and role of the state. In this argument, Republicans might release a proposal that made the Bush tax cuts permanent, privatized Medicare, turned Medicaid entirely over to the states, protected the Pentagon from serious cuts and repealed all of the health-care reform law and much of the financial-reform law. Democrats, meanwhile, could propose a carbon tax, a financial-transactions tax, a public option, significant cuts to defense and more short-term stimulus to get the economy moving before we transition into a period of austerity.
But we?re not having a balanced argument over the deficit. We?re having an asymmetric argument over deficit reduction. Republicans see the deficit as an opportunity to push for dramatic and permanent changes to the state ? including some that would technically increase the deficit. Their plan is exactly the same as the one I sketched out in the second scenario. As for the Obama administration, they?re proposing a much more modest package that doesn?t use the deficit to push for long-term priorities, and in fact looks like a slightly more conservative version of the Simpson-Bowles report. It?s fallen to liberal think tanks to promote plans that see the deficit as an opportunity to push for major progressive policy changes. But without the support of the White House, those plans aren?t going to get very far.
For the record, I don?t agree with the policies the GOP is pushing under the guise of deficit reduction, but I think they?re right to see an opportunity for reform rather than a math problem that needs to be solved. A world in which we stop taxing work so heavily and begin taxing carbon is much preferable to a world in which we just jack up taxes on work. A world where we?re saving money through a strong public option is a lot better than a world in which we?re saving money by reducing health-care benefits. It?s better to save money through reforms that make the state work better than to simply make it do less and tax more.
The politics are more complicated. It?s easier to get voters excited and find interest groups who?ll support a basket of policies that include dramatic, positive reforms than it is to get anyone interested in a bunch of spending cuts and tax increases. But as Republicans have found out with Ryan?s proposal, and as Democrats would learn if they so much as mentioned a carbon tax, big policies also help organize your opposition.
And insofar as you believe a deal on the deficit is actually important, the further the parties drift from each other, the harder it is to come to an agreement. Compromising between $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes and $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes is a lot easier than compromising between privatizing and voucherizing Medicare and not privatizing and voucherizing Medicare. In the end, Ryan?s plan has made a deal a lot harder than it would?ve been if the two parties had decided to do negotiations first and come out with a final plan together. But from the perspective of Republicans, it?s probably made a good deal a lot likelier.
Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=16c1afb459da2a853dd703847879d5fa
No comments:
Post a Comment