As others see it: A bipartisan budget

Talk about it

It surfaced Wednesday, and it may already have died Wednesday. At press time, the U.S. House was considering a vote.

But even if that happened, this much is clear: There is a bipartisan way to reduce Washington’s deficit and debt.

It’s the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was generated by a bipartisan committee in 2010 but never got the full hearing it deserved.

This week, a bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers fashioned a budget proposal based on Simpson-Bowles. That’s the proposal that seemed likely to be killed Wednesday night.

But even if the “no” vote took place, Simpson-Bowles or something very much like it should and probably will rise again.

Sooner or later, congressmen will tire of spinning their wheels with extremist proposals that get absolutely nowhere. They’ll look for an alternative and will find the one that continues to gain significant support, even after a more than a year: Simpson-Bowles.

Simpson-Bowles, of course, was the end result of the president’s bipartisan debt and deficit reduction commission, chaired by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and Democratic Gov. Erskine Bowles.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D, played a key role in setting the commission up. Conrad served on it and voted for its final report, which called for reducing the deficit via $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

Ten commission members —five other Democrats, five Republicans — voted with Conrad in favor of the plan. But four D’s and three R’s voted against, and that was enough to consign the report to limbo. ...

As support from job-creators such as the Business Roundtable continues to grow, hardcore conservatives and liberals alike are running out of excuses. There is away forward — a bipartisan approach that American leaders by the hundreds or even thousands have been impressed by. It’s the Simpson-Bowles plan; Congress should accept its broad outlines and get to work.

Tags: opinion, editorials, politics