You’ll pardon me if I retain a healthy skepticism.
Ah, so that’s why it’s coming a full two months late! Womp. Anyhow, whatever the details are, a proposal that ever actually comes close to balancing in any span of time was always too much to hope for, and he’s throwing in some types of concessions on entitlement reform — which, as Ed already explained, is a pretty bid deal politically, albeit that they’re coming with the requisite ‘revenue enhancers.’ They’re calling it a ‘compromise proposal,’ but there is already some griping coming from the left, and Speaker Boehner wasn’t exactly full of unbridled optimism this morning:
“The president and I were not able to reach an agreement late last year because his offers never lived up to his rhetoric. Despite talk about so-called balance, the president’s last offer was significantly skewed in favor of higher taxes and included only modest entitlement savings. He said he could go no further toward the middle, and that’s why his last offer was rejected. In the end, the president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts. At some point we need to solve our spending problem, and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances. In reality, he’s moved in the wrong direction, routinely taking off the table entitlement reforms he’s previously told me he could support.
“When the president visited the Capitol last month, House Republicans stated a desire to find common ground and urged him not to make savings we agree upon conditional on another round of tax increases. If reports are accurate, the president has not heeded that call. If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”