Is the Deficit Commission Serious? | Mother Jones

Half the discretionary budget is military to which the southern-strategy Republicans are ideologically and materially and geographically attached. The Democrats are too cowed by flag-wavers to seriously cut unnecessary defense spending. Cross military cuts off the list. 


Next is cutting Social Security for younger people, cut government salaries, shrink government. That will save money now, help create poverty sooner or later or both. Cutting other people's income  and benefits is the tough, manly thing to do so Erskine Bowles (never trust someone with two last names) and Alan Simpson (never trust a Republican from Wyoming) go there. 

Kevin Drum in Mother Jones (link below) gets it right:


To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

Is the Deficit Commission Serious? | Mother Jones
h/t TPM and Greg Sargent