All except for Lil' Michele Bachmann, who wants all the cuts and prays to be changed into a real, live boy, every night. Or, a toaster.
Jay Ackroyd at The Great Curmudgeon:
So what this "voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness" [Krugman] is really intended to be is an iteration of Bush's [Social Security] privatization plan--meant to have Mark Halperin et al force the Democrats to concede the principle that Medicare must be gutted, and then shift the discussion to one over the numerical details: the means test, the vouchers' value, and the allowable rate of increase of the vouchers. And do keep in mind that there is much sympathy among the Democratic elite for this approach, of moving seniors onto the insurance exchanges. Oh, and to permanently take taxing the top income decile off the table.
But, remember Speaker Pelosi. Atrios reminds us that her response to [Lil' Boots Bush's Social Security] privatization gambit was simple.
"Never. Is that good for you?"
As E.D. Kain points out, same here. There's no need to respond to this claptrap.
A lot of people are saying things like “The ball is in Obama’s court” and what-have-you. The problem is that the ball has never really left the Republican court. Until Republicans agree to tax increases, why should Democrats agree to spending cuts? Why should Democrats take Republicans seriously at all if Republicans are completely unwilling to repeal the Bush tax cuts?
No, the ball is still in the GOP’s court. When they come up with a serious proposal – when they realize that politics is the art of compromise – then we can say the ball is in Obama and the Democrats’ court. Until then, well, the math doesn’t work.