In todays WSJ there's an op-ed about this, this week the 6 repubs on the super committee offered a tax reform that would lock in lower rates in exchange for giving up deductions. The plan was to raise $250 billion by restricting the total amount of deductions to something like 2% of the individual's AGI. Which I'm sure you realize would hit those top earners that libdems hate so much. But in exchange the top rates would be cut to 28% from 35% for the top earners, with other lower rates also falling. The net result would still be a $250 billion increase in revenue over 10 years. Given the history of revenue gains that come after a cut in marginal tax rate cuts, that amount could be a lot more. Another $40 billion in new revenue would come from changing the formula for adjusting the tax brackets for inflation. And another $200 billion more would come from a variety of other things, all scored on a static basis by the Joint Tax Committee. IOW, the additional revenue could vbe more but not less. And corporate tax reform could also be done to cut the top rate from 35% to 25% in return for eliminating deductions. In exchange, the democrats would have had to give up $750 billion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. About $180 billion of that would come from changing the inflation calculation for benefits, not sure what benefits are being referred to. And the Bush tax cuts would be permanent. But still, this is a good deal but the dems turned it down. We're talking a ratio of 1.5 to 1 in spending cuts to revenue increases here, far better for the dems that the 3:1 recommended by the Simpson Bowles Commission. They want the Bush tax cuts AND a full trillion in new revenue AND no reduction at all in the top tax rate. So who are the real ideologues here?