Advertisement

Opinion: The Conversation: Debating the deficit-reduction plan

Share

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The opinionators weigh in on the plan proposed by President Obama’s bipartisan deficit-reduction commission:

A Chicago Tribune editorial calls it a “debt dud” with “something in it for everyone to hate.”

Advertisement

New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman asks, “[H]ow, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

The LA Times editorial agrees that there’s much to hate, but argues that the report was clear about the solution: “It will require both tax increases and spending cuts, over the course of several years, to eliminate the structural deficit. But that kind of responsible budgeting is the last thing lawmakers intend to do. […] For government to put its financial house in order, politicians must accept that they are public servants, and that sometimes properly serving the public means risking the wrath of constituents.

But a Wall Street Journal editorial finds a positive: “We’ve been expecting to dislike the report of President Obama’s deficit commission, so count us as pleasantly surprised by the […] competitive tax code.’

And The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait musters up some inspirational words: “How should liberals respond to the debt commission?” he asks. “The correct answer, I think, is to see it as an opportunity for a policy success or a political win. The wrong answer is to reject it out of hand.”

RELATED

You can’t blame the Fed -- at least it’s doing something

Trying to reduce the federal debt by fixing the budget process

A deficit-reduction plan that may not succeed, but is sure to offend

Advertisement

Delay the receipt of Social Security benefits to help the economy, federal budget, and retirees

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Advertisement