RELEASE: Super Committee Democratic Plan Nearly Identical to the Bowles-Simpson Plan
Contact: Katie Peters
Washington, D.C. — Today the Center for American Progress released a column illustrating that the deficit reduction package offered by super committee Democrats was nearly identical to the plan put forth by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. The Democrats’ super committee plan, which actually contains much less revenue than Bowles-Simpson, was rejected by Republicans.
With this year’s special deficit super committee having come up empty, some are turning back to last year’s special deficit commission to provide a blueprint for moving forward. The plan offered by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the chairmen of the president’s fiscal commission, enjoyed bipartisan support from lawmakers—it served as the basis of the Senate’s Gang of Six plan—and is often the subject of effusive praise from centrist deficit hawks. Some prominent conservatives even criticized the president and Democrats in Congress for failing to fully embrace the Bowles-Simpson plan.
But Democrats on the super committee did embrace it, and even sweetened the deal for conservatives by slashing the amount of revenue increases in half. The overall amount of discretionary cuts offered by the Democrats on the panel was essentially identical to that in the Bowles-Simpson plan. The amount of cuts to health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were the same in both plans. The Democratic plan contained only slightly shallower cuts to other mandatory programs but did not include the changes to Social Security that Bowles-Simpson recommended.
As for revenue, the Bowles-Simpson plan called for about $2 trillion in revenue above that which would be raised if all the Bush tax cuts were extended (not including additional revenue from their Social Security changes). The Democratic plan, by contrast, included just $1 trillion in new revenue.
The Democrats embraced almost the entirety of the Bowles-Simpson spending cuts. And they paired that up with only half as much revenue. Yet the Republicans still refused. The Bowles-Simpson plan may yet provide the foundation for an eventual “grand bargain” for deficit reduction. But for now, even a plan well to its right was deemed unacceptable by conservative lawmakers.
To speak with the column’s author, Michael Linden, Director for Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress, contact Katie Peters at 202.741.6285 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or email@example.com
Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or email@example.com
Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice, Legal Progress)
202.741.6258 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues, TalkPoverty.org, faith)
202.478.5328 or email@example.com
Print: Benton Strong (Center for American Progress Action Fund)
202.481.8142 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or email@example.com
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Radio: Sally Tucker
202.481.8103 or email@example.com