Good Cop/Bad Cop Meets The Prisoners' Dilemma

Hey, looky what the Obama National Debt, Heat-Taking, Human Shield & Ass-Covering Panel has come up with!  Could this actually be a workable solution to Red Barry's deliberate economic sabotage?:

[Erskine] Bowles, a North Carolina investment banker and former Clinton White House chief of staff, is suggesting a cap on overall government spending and revenue of 21% of gross domestic product. The federal government currently spends 25% of GDP and takes in 15% as revenue, though both numbers are a bit distorted by the recent recession. By 2035, according to the Congressional Budget Office, spending could leap to 35% of GDP with revenue at 19%. By those numbers Bowles is suggesting that some 90% of the gap should be closed by cutting the spending side of the ledger....

All this would, of course, require massive restructuring of social entitlements. In return, other panel Democrats would demand higher taxes — a supposed “no go” zone for Republicans. But perhaps such a heavy bias toward spending cuts could pry loose a couple of GOPers if tax increases focused on eliminating breaks rather than raising rates.

Then again, tax increases of any sort might not be necessary, assuming spending cuts. If the economy grows somewhat more like it has through the 20th century than what is assumed by dreary CBO forecasts, that alone would reduce projected budget deficits by 25% in 2035.

Color me as....not so impressed.  Sure, by projected 2035 numbers 90% of the fiscal tweaks would be on the spending side of the ledger.  By current numbers, which is where this little expedition would have to start, that proportion would be more like 40% versus 60% from tax increases from a devastated economy that is to revenue what turnips are to blood.

Take a step back and examine whether revenue and spending can both be looked at in terms of percentage of GDP.  Spending is easy in that regard, because it's a straightforward political decision.  Tying it to percentage of GDP would be a limitation, but future Congresses could still spend right up to that limit.  Revenue is different because it comes from GDP and is therefore entirely dependent upon the state of the economy.  As raising taxes is by definition anti-growth and anti-prosperity, this would appear to create a problem for the Dems on this dog & pony show "commission".  Assuming, of course, that any of them are genuinely interested in boosting the odds of a return to fiscal solvency.  Would any of them be willing to go along with their GOP counterparts on supply side tax policy that would get and keep the economy growing in order to boost revenues at lower rates?  And, by the by, increase how much they could spend because of the enhanced levels of GDP?

Ace's cynical logic in that regard is very persuasive:

One suspicion I have, though - and I may be overthinking/conspiracy-theorizing here - is that if Bowles and Simpson have made a deal, where in they swap places, basically, and Bowles offers a spending-cut heavy plan to try to win over the Democrats, but Simpson will reciprocate and sell the GOP on higher taxes.

Each man agrees with the other to use his credibility with his respective tribe to push the other's priority, figuring, perhaps, that that way, at least they can get both sides closer to each other for a deal.

In a sane world, there would be no Democrats on this "commission" because it was Democrats who sabotaged the economy in the first place so they could take us in the very direction of fiscal calamity.  As it is, there really aren't any grounds for "compromise" for panel Republicans, not if they're taking their roles seriously.  The road out of Debtageddon means a complete reversal of Obamanomics.  Any outcome short of that is a waste of time and lending themselves as accessories to America's demise as a world power.

Which, in turn, means that the "commission's" ultimate verdict will either be embraced by The One as the PR fig leaf he needs for stomping on the socialism accellerator even harder, or ignored as he does so anyway, blaming "partisan" Republicans for making him have to do it.

I sure hope Alan Simpson retains enough of his wits about him to see the ultimate endgame toward which his futile participation in this fraud exercise is headed.  'cause he and the GOP contingent are far more the "prisoners" in that metaphor than Bowles and the Democrats will ever be.