Dick Durbin on Fox News Sunday (3/6/11)

Sam Stein:

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declared on Sunday that his party was unwilling to budge one cent further on the number of cuts it included in its budget proposal, even with a government shutdown looming in less than two weeks. The Illinois Democrat, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that in offering $10 billion in cuts from current spending levels, Democrats had, in his estimation, “pushed this to the limit.” Cutting additional discretionary spending -- which constitutes roughly 12 percent of the budget deficit –- in the hopes of balancing the budget was not only, quite literally, impossible, but counterproductive to economic recovery.

Durbin said he'd be willing to see more deficit reduction, but not from domestic discretionary spending. Translation: deeper cuts should come from military spending. Targeting military spending actually makes a ton of sense; under President Clinton, military spending fell dramatically and the peace dividend contributed to the budget surplus in the final years of his presidency. In contrast, domestic discretionary spending has never dropped significantly on a sustained basis in American history. (Social Security and Medicare spending aren't domestic discretionary spending, but it seems unimaginable that Democrats would propose benefit cuts in those programs.)

Mitch McConnell on Face the Nation (3/6/11)

Democrats had offered their spending cut proposal on Friday, cutting about $10 billion from current levels, including $6.5 billion in cuts proposed by President Obama. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell rejected that proposal on Sunday, dismissing the Democratic argument that the GOP proposal for more severe cuts would recklessly threaten economic recovery.

McConnell disputed Kerry's assertion that the Republican plan was "reckless." "What's reckless, Bob, is the $1.6 trillion deficit we're running this year," McConnell said. ... McConnell said the negotiations have only come "about one-sixth of the way to where House Republicans are, and where I am the majority and hopefully all Senate Republicans are."

Of course, under both the Democratic and Republican plans, the deficit would be virtually identical: $1.6 trillion. Although the GOP cut proposals would have a insignificant impact on the deficit, they'd have a huge impact on jobs: two reports have now concluded their plan would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, with a former McCain economic adviser estimating the cuts would put 700,000 people out of work.

The reason why the Democratic and Republican spending proposals would have virtually identical impacts on the overall deficit is simple: the enormous deficit is primarily a function of reduced revenue thanks to a combination of tax cuts and slow GDP growth. For example, the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts cost $858 billion. That deal included $57 billion for unemployment benefits, but other than that it was almost entirely tax cuts. In all, the tax cuts in that one deal alone cost 16 times as much as the difference between the Democratic and Republican spending proposals.

So when Mitch McConnell talks about wanting to reduce the deficit, he's not being honest. If he were serious about deficit reduction, he'd be looking at the revenue side of the equation. But he's not—the only thing he wants to do is cut spending. He's pursuing an ideological agenda, not a pragmatic one. And given that Senate Republicans have the power to filibuster spending bills, he's at least as likely as John Boehner to shut down the federal government in pursuit of that agenda.

Congress has until March 18 to pass another spending bill to keep the federal government open.