海角大神

You may have noticed a flurry of letters lately calling on our elected leaders to do something about America鈥檚 growing debt. First up were 64 senators. Then 10 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. And today, including yours truly.

Our message to President Obama and congressional leaders Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, and McConnell:

As you continue to work on our current budget situation, we are writing to let you know that we join with the 64 Senators who recently wrote that comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative, and to urge you to work together in support of a broad approach to solving the nation鈥檚 fiscal problems. As they said in their letter to President Obama:

鈥淎s you know, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission鈥檚 recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt. The Commission鈥檚 work also underscored the scope and breadth of our nation鈥檚 long-term fiscal challenges.

Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.鈥�

You may also have noticed that final phrase is decidedly non-specific. As my TPC colleague , there鈥檚 a lot of euphemizing going on.

That鈥檚 understandable and, frankly, necessary at this point of the process. Step 1 is to demonstrate that folks with a broad range of views agree that something must be done about our building debt. Getting that consensus requires some vagueness about the eventual policy solutions. Hence such elliptical phrases as 鈥渢ax reform鈥� and 鈥渆ntitlement changes.鈥�

I usually use the phrase 鈥渢ax reform鈥� to mean structural changes 鈥� improvements, one hopes 鈥� to the tax code independent of revenue levels. For purposes of this letter, however, I interpret it as meaning revenue increases as well. As regular readers know, I think the best way to do that is to attack spending-like provisions that are structured as tax preferences.

I interpret 鈥渆ntitlement changes鈥� to be reductions in the biggest entitlement programs 鈥� Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security 鈥� relative to the spending scheduled under current law. That qualifying phrase is important, since there鈥檚 plenty of room to reduce the growth rate of these programs without cutting below today鈥檚 benefit levels. Some smaller entitlements like farm subsidies, however, should be cut from today鈥檚 levels.

Finally, I believe the 鈥渄iscretionary spending cuts鈥� should include security spending, not just non-security.

So that鈥檚 what I mean by the euphemisms.

------------------------------

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.