NYT editorial: The Un-Sensible Common Ground

The odds of a calm and reasoned deficit debate have never been good. Politicians from both parties favor deficit reduction until it comes to raising taxes on the rich or making actual cuts in the big-dollar programs, like Social Security and defense. The events of this week, however, have been truly absurd. Deficit talk reached new decibel levels, as lawmakers and administration officials huddled over extending budget-busting, Bush-era tax cuts.

On Monday, calling for shared sacrifice, President Obama proposed a two-year pay freeze for federal civilian employees. Broad sacrifice is a tenet of deficit reduction, and a freeze would save $5 billion through 2012, and $60 billion over 10 years. But Mr. Obama did not say who else should sacrifice. Closing the pet loophole of multimillionaire private equity partners would raise $25 billion over 10 years. Ending Bush tax cuts for affluent Americans would raise $700 billion over 10 years.

On Tuesday, looking for “sensible common ground,” Mr. Obama dispatched two top White House officials to negotiate with Republicans on the Bush-era tax cuts. The problem is, common ground has already been found — and abandoned. Both sides have long agreed that tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 should be extended. That is more than enough. It would preserve $3.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Republicans, however, insist that the high-end cuts also be extended, bringing the total 10-year cost to $4 trillion.

Congressional Democrats were too timid to bring the issue up for a vote before the election and took a beating anyway. Now they are faced with extending the tax cuts in the lame-duck session and are bound to extend some or all of the cuts for the rich. The only real question is in exchange for what, if anything?

(Original here.)