Five Basic Points About Bowles-Simpson

October 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Our new report — What Was Actually in Bowles-Simpson? — has the details, but below are five basic points about the budget plan from presidential deficit commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.

  1. Bowles-Simpson called for $6.3 trillion in deficit reduction over fiscal years 2013-2022. That figure consists of $5.5 trillion in policy savings and about $800 billion in interest savings.
  2. The $5.5 trillion in policy savings consists of 53 percent budget cuts and 47 percent revenue increases, or almost a 1-to-1 ratio. In dollar terms, Bowles-Simpson calls for almost $2.9 trillion in program cuts and almost $2.6 trillion in revenue increases. This nearly 1-to-1 ratio does not include the interest savings.  If one counts interest savings as a spending reduction, we get a 1.4-to-1 ratio of program cuts to revenue increases.
  3. Policymakers have already enacted about half of Bowles-Simpson’s nearly $2.9 trillion of program cuts. Because of the caps on discretionary funding in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA), discretionary spending will be $1.5 trillion lower over 2013-2022 than under the Congressional Budget Office’s August 2010 baseline (the baseline in use when the Bowles-Simpson commission deliberated).  Including the associated interest savings, the total budget savings reach $1.7 trillion.
  4. The majority of the savings in Bowles-Simpson that haven’t yet been achieved is on the revenue side. Excluding the enacted savings, the Bowles-Simpson plan would achieve an additional $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years, consisting of $1 in program cuts for every $2 in revenue increases.
  5. The $4.6 trillion in additional deficit reduction under Bowles-Simpson is more than twice what is needed to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy. As policymakers consider various deficit reduction packages, they should keep in mind what various amounts of deficit reduction will achieve in terms of managing the national debt.  They should also be aware of the mix and nature of program reductions and revenue increases used to achieve these goals.  The challenge will be to strike the right balance.
Print Friendly

More About Richard Kogan

Richard Kogan

Richard Kogan rejoined the Center in May 2011 after having served as a Senior Adviser at the Office of Management and Budget since January 2009. During his second tour at the Center, from 2001 to 2009, he served as a Senior Fellow specializing in federal budget issues, including aggregate spending, revenues, surpluses and deficits, and debt. Kogan is also an expert in the congressional and executive budget processes and budget accounting concepts.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




9 − one =

 characters available