specify which deductions and credits. in the real world, those provisions will be, i think almost impossible to pass on the hill. that s one of my worries. it held out there lowers the top rate, and more than paying for it by massive changes unspecified in areas that would have to include the employer health excludes, the mortgage interest deduction. i think a lot of what it rmded would be good policy, don t get me wrong, but i don t see how you could pass it. i do think bowles/simpson went too far on some of its budget cuts, but in any event, dana makes a good point that s one possible way out. what we don t know is whether republicans on the hill, other than the few of them on the commission would ever accept something like bowles/simpson, which does have significant defense cuts and net tax increases, even though it lowers the top rate.
up. you have the bold simpson proposal. the final solution will have to look something like that. i don t agree with that, i ll be honest with you. in that proposal taxes were also cut. they raise them in other ways. robert, i don t know if you studied up on the deficit commission, but they seem to lower the top brackets like ryan does, but increase taxes, so i like that solution in some ways even less. the middle class gets spending cuts, and the rich still get their tax cut. the commission clearly is preferable to ryan. my concerns about the deficit commission package is that i think a really balanced package would be about half budget cuts and about half revenue increases. t the simpson does have it closes tax deductions, credits and the like, but it doesn t