As part of the deal being discussed to raise the debt ceiling, leaders on Capitol Hill are forming an especially powerful congressional committee that would be charged with drawing up a new "grand bargain," possibly by the end of the year.Gimme what I want right now, and I'll listen to your needs next year. Maybe even this year!
Key elements for a big deal remain in place. Obama has been clear that he wants one and has started making the case to skeptical factions of his own party that getting the nation's fiscal house in order is in their best interest. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) also remains committed to an ambitious plan, having told his troops that he didn't become speaker to do small things. And, perhaps most critically, the markets are demanding it. The credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says Washington must agree to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years to avert a downgrade.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)said "Every serious economic analysis tells us we've reached the danger zone. And just kicking the can down the road? That can't be. We're better than that. We've got to be better than that."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has emerged as the leader of this contingent, has argued against such a deal. But his views may be shifting along with those of some rank-and-file House Republicans whose imaginations have been captivated by the idea of slicing as much as $5 trillion out of the federal budget over the next decade.
In public at least, conservatives are maintaining that the answer is to "cut, cap and balance" -- passing a balanced-budget amendment that would cap federal spending at 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, down from its current 24 percent.
There's an idea I could get behind.
The House is expected to vote Tuesday on such an amendment, but it has scant odds of getting the needed supermajority in the Senate. Democrats say an 18 percent cap in a country with an aging population and rising health-care costs would lead to ruinous cuts
Under the stopgap plan
The committee would resemble the fiscal
"We all keep coming back to the same basic parameters. The Bowles-Simpson plan really laid out how you reach $4 trillion. And there aren't a lot of things they didn't consider," Durbin said. "There are only so many moving parts here."
Even if you consider all of the parts, and quit making some inviolable.
The commission recommended saving $3.8 trillion by raising the retirement age for Social Security, slashing spending across government and wiping out more than $100 billion a year in popular tax breaks, including the tax deduction for mortgage interest and the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance. It recommended larger Pentagon cuts and revenue increases than the White House sought this month.
Tax and spend. Whotta concept! Why didn't I think of that?
Reid has been outspoken about the need to protect Social Security benefits. He is also eager to avoid cuts to Medicare that would undermine Democrats' ability to campaign against the House GOP's plan to eventually replace Medicare with a system of subsidies to buy private coverage.
Obama countered last week that Democrats should want a major fiscal deal, because it would make it easier to win approval for spending on their priorities in the next few years.
Is 'Everything I want' a 'priority'?
"If you care about making investments in our kids and making investments in our infrastructure and making investments in basic research," he said, "then you should want our fiscal house in order so that every time we propose a new initiative somebody doesn't just throw up their hands and say, Ah, more big spending, more government."
Actually, I agree with that part. But in this case, it's still part of Obama's scheming - a shifty new direction.