海角大神

The Washington Post鈥檚 the true 鈥渉awkishness鈥� of some who label themselves 鈥渄eficit hawks鈥�:

As I , the term 鈥渄eficit hawk,鈥� as it鈥檚 commonly used in Beltway discourse, simply doesn鈥檛 mean 鈥渟omeone who fully committed to reducing the deficit by any means necessary, even if it means tax hikes and 鈥� paradoxically enough 鈥� new government programs.鈥� Rather, it means 鈥渟omeone who is fully committed to reducing the deficit through tax cuts, entitlement reform and an unswerving adherence to general hostility towards expansive government.鈥濃��

[I]magine if everyone who used the term 鈥渄eficit hawk鈥� agreed that it should refer only to those want to reduce the deficit by any means necessary, with nothing at all taken off the table. The conversation would start to sound very different, wouldn鈥檛 it?

It sounds to me like Greg鈥檚 saying a lot of Tea Party types label themselves 鈥渄eficit hawks鈥濃�揳nd that鈥檚 probably true. But I cringe when I hear that, because to be opposed to deficits does not mean one is opposed to big government. It just means that if I am for big government but against deficits, I have to be for higher taxes. And if I am for smaller government and lower taxes, but against deficits, I have to be for the tough benefit cuts that make that math work out. I think Paul Ryan has pretty clearly spelled out that he is a deficit hawk of the latter type (even if the details of the proposed benefit cuts are not yet spelled out), that the Progressive Caucus in Congress has spelled out that they鈥檙e deficit hawks of the former type (closing the deficit with mostly tax increases鈥揵ut also defense cuts), and that President Obama is trying to forge a deficit-hawkish path somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion, anyone who sincerely offers a plan to reduce the deficit can deserve the label 鈥渄eficit hawk鈥濃�搉o matter how different their preferred approach may be from my own or even society鈥檚 consensus view. that deficit hawks who still value a strong role of government might be more appropriately labeled 鈥渄eficit pandas鈥濃�揵ut that鈥檚 probably a little too wimpy sounding for most people鈥檚 tastes. (Pandas are cute and cuddly, yes, but they also seem pretty fat and lazy.) A year ago Michael Linden of the that those who are insincere in their commitment to deficit reduction鈥揵ut use their claimed commitment to fiscal responsibility to get what they really want, which is a small government still larger than the much lower taxes they鈥檙e willing to pay鈥揳re more properly considered 鈥渄eficit peacocks.鈥� ( CAP guide on 鈥渉ow to spot a deficit peacock鈥� a lot, and he even called the President one at the time.)

So whether any of us perceive someone as deserving of the 鈥渄eficit hawk鈥� label depends on our own individual interpretations of the sincerity and seriousness of the deficit-reduction strategies offered. There鈥檚 so much distrust in this town though, so those deficit-reduction approaches polar opposite to our own (that we just fundamentally dislike) are automatically dismissed as insincere and not serious. And then we say we won鈥檛 even honor the other side with any conversation about their 鈥渃razy鈥� plan versus our serious plan. We label them (cocky) 鈥減eacocks鈥� or 鈥減andas鈥� (of the fat and lazy variety) and claim that we, as true 鈥渉awks,鈥� don鈥檛 need to work things out with them.

I don鈥檛 know what the political solution is (nor what some other fitting animal descriptions might be for the various factions in this deficit-reduction debate), but so far this common-good, shared-sacrifice, fiscal responsibility effort that the President says we need to make, is not working out so well鈥揺ven with the mix of true deficit hawks already involved.

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

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.