The best explanation I can think of is that this proposal is designed to place Democrats in a tighter fiscal straitjacket. By campaigning on Pay-As-You-Go, Democrats already limited their ability to pass popular spending proposals without phasing out Bush's tax cuts more quickly than present law would. But their frequent criticisms of Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility also makes it difficult for them to pass a budget that closes the deficit less quickly than his proposal. This leaves them with an awkward choice. They can:
- Employ similar budget gimmicks to make their budget appear to "balance the budget by 2012" as well, but reduce the size of the spending cuts by phasing out some tax cuts on a faster schedule
- Pass an honest budget that in both appearances and actuality does reduce the deficit more quickly than Bush's, but has draconian spending cuts and/or large tax increases
- Attack Bush's budget deficit as pure fuzzy math and throw it out the window (except for a few concrete proposals on Pell grants and International AIDS funding) and then pass a budget that is more responsible than Bush's actually is, but eschews gimmicks and therefore will be attacked as "unserious about the deficit"
No comments:
Post a Comment