[jeffkrol]

The Bowles-Simpson “plan” was an earnest and badly needed attempt to reconcile the GOP’s hazy belief that government is enormous with reality. They did everything they could possibly do: They brought in representatives from all sides for long meetings with budget experts, going through all aspects of federal policy in detail, in the hope of reaching an agreement on the proper scope of government and how to pay for it. It failed. The Bowles-Simpson plan wound up punting on all the major questions because it simply couldn’t bridge that gulf between perception and reality. That’s why, in lieu of any ability to identify government functions to eliminate, the plan simply pretended the federal government could have everybody do a lot more work for less pay.

The real domestic savings in Bowles-Simpson came from building on Obamacare’s steps to save money by holding down the growth of health-care costs and to cut defense spending by pretty steep levels. But these turned out to be ideas that alienated rather than satisfied Republicans. So basically it turned out to be impossible to find real spending cuts that Republicans wanted.

It’s true that Paul Ryan’s budget plan had some deep cuts. But none of those cuts touched Medicare for the next decade or Social Security at all. Ryan just kicked the crap out of the poor. So, that provision aside, if you’re not willing to inflict epic levels of suffering on the very poor, there just aren’t a lot of cuts to be had out there.

Why Republicans Can?t Propose Spending Cuts -- Daily Intelligencer
Sorry, Boehner, spending isn't the problem - The Maddow Blog

By focusing solely on one side of the ledger, Boehner hopes to push the debate onto more comfortable terrain. He doesn't want a debate about reducing the debt and moving towards a balanced budget; he wants a debate about shrinking government. This isn't about finding a post-election compromise with those who won with broad public support; this is about the Republican crusade to cut public investments and weaken public institutions for purely ideological ends.

If the Speaker and his caucus can persuade folks that "spending is the problem" -- and there are no other problems -- it will serve as a counterweight to Democratic goals of a "balanced," bipartisan solution.

The flaw in Boehner's pitch? Spending is not the problem.

For Republicans, it's an incontrovertible fact that President Obama has thrown caution to wind and increased spending dramatically in his first term, writing checks like there is no tomorrow. In reality, government spending has gone down as a percentage of GDP, a fact that's been documented many, many times. What's more, Obama accepted $1 trillion in spending cuts just last year, and the White House is offering additional spending cuts as part the ongoing fiscal talks.

It's true that spending is set to increase in the coming years, but that's not because rascally Democrats are fiscally irresponsible; it's because of an aging population and rising health care costs.

There are modest steps we can take now to deal with these long-term fiscal challenges, but to date, Republicans have opposed all of them.

We can also go one step further, and ask the House Speaker where his plan to cut spending is, if in fact, spending is the problem. Boehner has initiated these fiscal talks, but has not yet produced a detailed plan to do, well, anything -- we don't know exactly what kind of cuts he wants in social insurance programs; we don't know exactly where he intends to find new revenue; and we don't know exactly what spending cuts he expects to see.

Jon Chait explained yesterday that the problem is "an epistemological gulf," created by a Republican impression of government spending that's built on "hazy, abstract notions that don't match reality and can't be translated into a workable program."