I have a practical (dare I say “pragmatic”, which some probably consider an epithet) question related to solving our fiscal imbalance problem before a huge crisis hits and/or huge tax increases are imposed on future taxpayers:

Assumption #1: With the possible — I emphasize, possible — exception of a future House majority of conservative Republicans, a filibuster-proof Senate super-majority of (at least 60) conservative Republicans (and I do mean conservative, not just Republican), AND a conservative Republican president, the political reality is that we are not going to substantially mitigate our long-term fiscal imbalance problem without a combination of sacrifices on the spending side and revenue side, because a large-scale spending-side-only approach (excluding even higher revenue from reduction of “tax expenditures” which I consider more like spending than like lower tax rates), although it may pass the House, will not pass the Senate and get signed by the president.

Assumption #2: Per Neil’s prediction/estimate, it looks like at best we are a few or several years away from a substantial possibility of that filibuster-proof conservative super-majority in the Senate.

It seems most folks here strongly insist that Republicans in Congress reject any deficit-”reduction” deal that includes any degree of any form of net revenue “increase”* (not even by reducing tax expenditures, which again, are more like spending than lower tax rates).

If that is what happens, that means no major progress in slowing down this fiscal car we are driving toward the cliff until maybe someday several years from now when maybe there will be a filibuster-proof (60+) strong conservative block in the Senate (and even then it might not happen because even aside from ideology, politicians just aren’t eager to impose major sacrifices on large numbers of voters, least of all the AARP crowd, so I’m saying it’s a necessary condition, not that it’s a sufficient condition.

So my question is: What’s the vision here, speaking practically? Is it responsible to kick the can down the road another several years as our debt/GDP continues to grow, as more and more baby-boomers start receiving Social Security and Medicare, as the inflation associated with Medicare (as with healthcare generally) continues to exceed general inflation, and — as a political matter — as the percent of voters who receive Social Security and Medicare grows (they tend to defend those benefits)? Or is the risk and cost we will eventually bear from such an approach exceed whatever we may gain in terms of greater restraint on spending?

Yes, I realize some may say that any compromise deal is a sham — that the revenue part will happen but the spending “cuts” will not. I share that concern too, but I think it’s a cop-out. I think legislation could be enacted that makes the revenue increases (via tax rate increases or, preferably, via reduction in tax expenditures) contingent upon implementation of the planned spending policies and/or budget targets. (As a note, I think reducing tax expenditures is a good thing regardless of what else is done or not done, because I don’t want government providing subsidies in either explicit expenditure form or hidden in the tax code.)

Moreover, I think the top priority must be some substantial mitigation of this problem — at least in terms of an enacted plan or series of plans — within a couple of years. For now it seems that U.S. Treasuries are still a safe haven amid turmoil in Europe, but that won’t always be the case, and when that subsides and if our publicly-held debt/GDP continues to grow and our policies and politics indicate we are fixed on an unsustainable path, we could face a bond market crisis, sudden high interest rates, etc., and it would be awful. Or even if a bit less severe, mounting debt imposes a larger and larger eventual cost on taxpayers in the future.

And I’d note that, amid a bond market crisis re: U.S. Treasuries a few/several years from now, it would be politically even harder to impose a spending-side-only solution, given the political difficulty of “cutting” entitlement benefits immediately (note that Ryan’s plan starts phasing in “cuts” way in the future — that’s no accident). So the ultimate result could be even more of a revenue-side solution than if we compromised now.

So I am not among those who reject compromise including a revenue component. In fact, as I said, I consider reduction of tax expenditures a good thing in its own right. But even if I were forced to choose between no progress for the next few/several years vs. a compromise now with some degree of tax rate increase(s), I’d favor the latter. It’s just a matter of practical (pragmatic) consideration of costs and risks vs. my ideal.

* I put “increase” and “reduction”these in quotes because it’s vs. CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario which roughly reflects current policy rather than their Extended Baseline which reflects current law, and choice of baseline affects what is called an “increase” or “reduction”.

Are you serious? Of course it’s possible for a candidate who has a better chance in the general to lose the primary. Do you really need that explained to you?

I thought you were implying that, if someone does not win the primary, he must not have had the best chance of winning the general.

I now think you were speaking in terms of process, as in step 1 being necessary to have a chance at step 2.

So I apologize for apparently misunderstanding you and for the unjustified snark.