David R. Henderson  

Clarity on the Budget Debate

PRINT
Demeanor and Brutality... Fight, Flight, Submission: War...

Most of the media have done a worse job than usual of reporting on the debt ceiling/budget debate. Specifically, when one side or the other offers a deal, the media don't typically tell us when the budget cuts would come, whether they are locked in or subject to further negotiation, what baseline they're from, etc. For that reason, even though I consider myself quite numerate and able to make fine distinctions, I have gotten lost.

Until now. My Hoover colleague, Keith Hennessey, has added a lot of clarity with this recent post. Hennessey does have a dog in the fight--he prefers spending cuts to tax increases. But I have generally found his posts on budget issues, which he got to know well while in the Bush II administration, quite informative.

An excerpt:

Popular storyline: In an attempt to get a Grand Bargain, President Obama proposed a centrist deficit reduction package. Congressional Republicans rejected that package only because it raised taxes, and were unreasonable for doing so. Like his fiscal commission cochairs Bowles & Simpson, the President proposed a responsible and balanced package of tax increases and long-term spending cuts that would solve our Nation's fiscal problems. Because they are unwilling to consider tax increases, Republicans are therefore to blame for the failure of a Grand Bargain and for future fiscal collapse.

The problem with this storyline is that eight months ago three prominent Senate Republicans supported the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, which contained a net tax increase. The House Republicans on the commission did not support those recommendations, but Senators Coburn, Crapo, and Gregg did. No one would call any of these three men moderates - all are clearly conservative.


The whole thing is worth reading because it's long on specifics.


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES: Fiscal Policy



COMMENTS (3 to date)
David C writes:

Unfortunately, his blog is blocked on my work server, but this explanation is just simply wrong. The opinions of Senate Republicans make little difference. Many of them are open to tax increase, but it's the House Republicans the President has to negotiate with, and they're not budging. Eric Cantor is leading the talks, and it's his opinion that matters most. He gave a presentation to the GOP a short time ago in which he explicitly stated the debt deal could not include any tax increases.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59882343/Eric-Cantor-July-Slides

Justin R. writes:

What I find interesting in the debt debate is that the Republicans are lambasted for demanding no tax increases. This could easily be argued in reverse: the Democrats are being obstinate by insisting on tax increases.

Jason Kasid writes:

Folks, the problem is the SPENDING not the tax revenue coming in. There is only so much money out there for investment and rite now the feds are sucking up over a Trillion worth every year!

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top