An interesting editorial in the NYT today outlines a plan that, if implemented, would seem to have a good chance of eliminating the deficit. Three quick complaints:

• The authors are silent on the Bush tax cuts, so I assume they want them extended.
• They are pretty much silent on the estate tax, although the make an oblique reference to only taxing estates bigger than $7 million- a huge cut compared to recent levels.
• They have a shallow understanding of compromise. They propose that half of all deficit reduction come from spending restraint and half come from tax increases. They do not explain why a meet-each-other-half-way prescription lines up with public spending and tax priorities. Regardless, many of these rather severe spending cuts seem out of touch with public priorities.

Take a look for yourself. WITH the new Democratic majority in Congress, President Bush finally talking about fiscal responsibility and the 2008 primary season about to begin, finding common ground between Democrats and Republicans on budget issues could not be more important. We are borrowing large sums from foreigners, leaving a legacy of debt, paying more than $1,600 per family in taxes just to cover the interest on the debt, and setting aside nothing to deal with future contingencies or investments. True, last year's deficit of $248 billion, at 1.9 percent of gross domestic product, was not large by historical standards, and next year's may be even smaller. But a failure to deal with deficits and overall debt sends the message that we have no plan for the sea of red ink that will engulf the nation when the baby boomers begin to retire next year.