Analysts on the Deficit Commission Report

By The NewsHour, The NewsHour - November 10, 2010

JIM LEHRER: The two chairmen of the commission on cutting the federal deficit laid out a long list of recommendations today. They ranged from raising the Social Security retirement age to 69, to eliminating the mortgage interest deduction on income taxes.

Republican Alan Simpson, a former Wyoming senator, teamed with Democrat Erskine Bowles, who was chief of staff to President Clinton.

Bowles said the plan is a starting point.

ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility And Reform: Senator Simpson and I put a -- what I think is a strong, balanced proposal out there to deal with what I think is the most predictable economic crisis that this country has ever faced.

Every single member of Congress knows that the path we're on today is not sustainable and that, if we don't bring these deficits down and eventually get to balance, you know, we are headed for disaster.

JIM LEHRER: And to Lori Montgomery, who has been covering this story for The Washington Post. Lori, welcome.

LORI MONTGOMERY, The Washington Post: Thank you for having me.

JIM LEHRER: What few words would you use to characterize the Bowles-Simpson proposal?

LORI MONTGOMERY: Well, I think, for one thing, it was a big surprise to just about everybody that they put out such a sweeping and comprehensive proposal.

I mean, I talked to members of the commission who, as late as last night, were expecting to see, you know, sort of a list of options with numbers beside them.

I mean, this is a dramatic, stark, and bold effort to actually balance the budget. And I'm not sure anyone was expecting that.

JIM LEHRER: What are the -- to you, at least, going through it, what are the most stark, the starkest?

LORI MONTGOMERY: Well, the idea that they would completely wipe out the tax deductions that are known as tax expenditures -- these things are worth more than $100 billion a year. As you mentioned, they include things like the mortgage interest deduction, the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health care.

I mean, there's stuff in here that touches everyone. And they would just wipe it out, in exchange for some lower tax rates, but they would suck some more money out of the tax code. Raising the retirement age, we were sort of expecting that. But there are a number of other reforms that they are proposing that would also serve to lower benefits for wealthier retirees. That is going to be very controversial.

And they have got more than $200 billion a year in discretionary spending cuts, which is something like a 20 percent reduction in Pentagon and other agency budgets.

JIM LEHRER: Now, I noticed that you mentioned the Pentagon, 15 percent cut in defense spending. And they even outlined, if I read this correctly, some specific weapons systems that should be eliminated.

LORI MONTGOMERY: Well, that's right. And what's been surprising to many people is that there are some Republicans that are willing to embrace this idea.

And if they're going to sell Social Security cuts to the liberal Democrats, who right now are screaming the loudest about this plan, they are going to have to have some serious reductions in military spending in there, too.

JIM LEHRER: Give us a feel for the reaction. There's been a lot of it in the last couple of hours.


Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?

LORI MONTGOMERY: Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.

There's an interesting dynamic developing. I guess I should mention, first of all, that the White House also has been a little, like, well, this is just a starting point, very sort of noncommittal at this point.

But, otherwise, there's an interesting dynamic developing, both on and off the commission. Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing.

They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect. And nobody is -- I mean, nobody is for it, but nobody is totally against it either.

And then you have got some people on the outside, longtime balance-budget advocates, who are calling this thing a breakthrough. It's like, you know: This is a serious plan. We can't go back to pretending that, you know, eliminating ear marks is going to solve our budget problems any more.

JIM LEHRER: But, then, on the other side, there -- Grover Norquist said that this was -- was a secret way or a camouflaged way -- of course, I'm paraphrasing -- but to raise taxes. And he essentially said it's unacceptable from his point view as well.

LORI MONTGOMERY: That's right. They're calling it a trillion-dollar tax increase.

But it's interesting that these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life in a way that I think everybody was assuming it wouldn't be resuscitated.

JIM LEHRER: All right, give us a feel now for the process. What happens next?

LORI MONTGOMERY: Well, that's a little unclear as well. So, the deficit commission, the 18 members of the deficit commission, which includes about a dozen members of Congress, were meeting into the afternoon to go over this thing, make sure they understand it, go through all the details.

Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »