by nanobot, Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:49:52 PM EDT
Are you kidding me?
Dean Baker sez,
On the negative side, it is unfortunate that President Obama accepted a formula that cuts three times as much from projected spending (including interest) as he proposes to increase taxes. It is also striking that he proposes to cut twice as much from domestic discretionary spending (the portion of the budget that includes most investment spending) as he does from defense spending, especially since defense spending is projected to be about 20 percent larger than domestic discretionary spending over the 10-year budget horizon.
More importantly, a deficit reduction agenda is a serious problem in the context of an economy that badly needs additional demand. While the economy is much healthier today than it was two years ago, the pace of job growth is not acceptable.
On the other hand:
by digby http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/plan.html
CBPP gives a good overview of the president's plan here. It's worth reading for both the good points and the bad points. This is the conclusion:
The President’s plan represents an important step forward in the debate. But it should be recognized that this plan is a rather conservative one, significantly to the right of the Rivlin-Domenici plan. While we worry about some particular elements of the President’s plan, we worry much more that the deficit-reduction process that’s now starting could produce an outcome that is well to the right of the already centrist-to-moderately-conservative Obama proposal, by reducing its modest revenue increases and cutting more deeply into effective programs that are vital to millions of Americans.
The "revenue increases" are very dicey in my opinion. They are based on a reformation of the tax code that includes the elimination of middle class deductions like the mortgage interest deduction which is hardly likely to pass, and the closing of corporate loopholes which will be deftly reinstated in new forms by lobbyists. But what strikes me as the strangest thing about it is that it seems to have baked into it the idea that it must also contain lower tax rates, which strikes me as bizarre if the intent is to close the deficit.
This kabuki dance is getting boring.