海角大神

Have you noticed that as the details of the tough budget reform proposed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles fade into memory, more politicians are embracing the plan developed by the chairs of the 2010 White House fiscal commission?

Oh, they don鈥檛 love the real plan鈥攂arely any elected official had a kind word to say about it when it was first proposed. But they are positively enamored of their own self-edited聽versions鈥攗sually with all the tough stuff conveniently deleted. 聽

Psychologists sometimes talk about 鈥渆cstatic memory鈥濃�攁n idealized recollection of some past event. Imagine, for example, guys at their college reunion gleefully reminiscing about that bender they went on senior year. In reality, they awoke with blinding hangovers in some cheap motel room. But in their memory, it was an evening filled with great music, beautiful women, and an all-around good time.

That鈥檚 a bit like what鈥檚 going on with Bowles-Simpson. 聽

No more than a handful of politicians have ever been willing to聽publicly support the actual plan, with all its gory details. The proposal would have reduced the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, including $2.2 trillion in unpopular spending reductions, $1 trillion in unpopular tax hikes and the rest in interest savings. 聽

You鈥檒l recall President Obama said approximately nothing when the chairs of his own fiscal commission made their recommendations. Key congressional GOP leaders who served on the commission鈥攊ncluding House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)鈥搗oted against the report. 聽聽

As recently as last March, the full House had a chance to vote on the plan. It got 38 votes鈥�16 Republicans and 22 Democrats.

But now, it seems the plan has all sorts of new friends. Just a couple of weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told the Council of Foreign Relations that the path to fiscal sustainability 鈥渂egan鈥� with Bowles-Simpson. Remarkably, he added that President Obama鈥檚 own budget 鈥渁lthough it differs in slight 鈥� in small respects from that basic framework, is very close to that basic design.鈥� 聽聽

Sure it is, except for the tax and spending parts.

Mitt Romney is another fan鈥攁bsent the details. For instance, he embraces the bit of the plan that would cut individual tax rates to 28 percent. But he conveniently forgets that overall Bowles Simpson would have raised taxes by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, increased rates on capital gains, and scaled back tax subsidies for home mortgages, charitable gifts, and employer-sponsored health insurance while wiping out tax preferences for nearly everything else.

Romney says he鈥檒l slash tax breaks聽to pay for those low rates too. But unlike Bowles-Simpson, he won鈥檛聽say how. Maybe he shares their plan for cutting preferences. Only he isn鈥檛 telling.

And that鈥檚 the real problem. Bowles and Simpson told people just what they鈥檇 do. And that鈥檚 exactly what politicians avoid at all costs. Instead, like those drunken college boys, they prefer to reminisce about the old days that never were. Or in the case of Bowles-Simpson, a budget plan that never was.