CBO's The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017 is now available.

An interesting discussion on PayGo has popped up on TPM Cafe. Amitai Etzioni wrote we shouldn't go by PayGo because it'll only lead to surpluses that Republicans will squander on their well-heeled constituents. Point well taken. Paul Krugman recently made a similar point, though less in terms of PayGo and more in terms of the deficit. But that's not the end of the story. Greg Anrig at TPM Cafe has an interesting response to Etzioni's post. He thinks PayGo is a good way to define Democrats as responsible and competent and Republicans as crazy.

EJ Dionne's column today, as usual, is good, but one thing kinda bugged me: No. 1: Extending President Bush's tax cuts to eternity will make the long-term problem much worse. Hint No. 2: The hardest part will be how -- simultaneously -- to meet the fiscal need to rein in health costs and the social need to get health insurance to everyone. Hint No. 3: Most Democrats don't like to talk about it, but somebody's taxes are going to have to go up. He sets up the "social need" for universal health insurance in tension to the "fiscal need" to rein in health costs, but I'm not so sure that's the right relationship. As I tried to write yesterday, there's some evidence that a greater role for the government would help bring down health care costs across all sectors in the long term. Anyway, I confess my ignorance of the mechanisms involved here. But doesn't this seem like the perfect silo-crossing issue? It'd be nice if health care wonks helped us ignorant budget wonks understand this aspect of universal coverage better. The best I can do is put Jacob Hacker's summary of the argument for cost-containment after the jump.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) wants to attach an $8 billion small business tax cut provision to a Senate minimum wage hike bill, because, as he claims, a "clean" minimum wage bill would not sustain a Republican filibuster.