The way David Gregory framed his "fiscal cliff" question on Meet The Press today is extremely revealing.  "What cuts," he asked his Democratic guest (I'm paraphrasing a little), "are Democrats willing to accept that will be truly painful?"  The answer, by the way, was "farm subsidies."  So, yes, the whole exchange was absurd.

But, let's focus on the question.  Why the word "pain?"  I guess one interpretation, unlikely, is that Gregory believes that the government is extremely well-managed so that any significant cuts to existing programs are going to hurt people in a real and tangible way.

But, if he believes that, you'd expect him to steer the conversation away from cuts entirely.  Unless, unlikely, he's a sadist or, more likely, he believes that no matter how great government programs are, our society can simply not pay for them.  We have reached or exceeded the maximum of what we can do, at least through the federal government, to improve American lives.  It's a Panglossian worldview.

Maybe he believes that the federal government is nothing but an amalgam of special interests, some corrupt, some well-meaning, effective to varying degrees, but that there's no way to cut the size of the federal budget without hurting some of them.  But then it seems that he wouldn't talk so much about "pain" as he would strategy.  What are the smart cuts to make?  Who are the interests, well-meaning or not, who no longer deserve federal funding?

More likely, the motive behind the question is far more basic.  "Pain," is another word for "shared sacrifice."  Shares sacrifice is a moral statement.  Rich and middle and poor alike are all responsible for the obligations of US Treasury bonds, so everybody should give up something towards the debt.  This implies some pretty substantial social cohesion amongst Americans, regardless of economic or social status.  It implies that we have all dined out together at the most expensive restaurant in Dubai and the night has come to an end and the check has arrived.  Some of us were served early and often.  Fine wines and steaks and Stoli Elite martinis were ordered but this overcrowded restaurant was only able to offer the best service to very few and that service deteriorated down the line so that by the time the check arrived, a great many people are still waiting for water, much less amuse bouche from the kitchen.  But, hey, we all picked the restaurant, so everybody should put in towards the bill and tip, right?

Raising taxes on the wealthy is not the same as requesting a sacrifice.  It's just a way of saying, "you got the best of the meal, you should pick up most of the bill."  The sacrifice has already been made by the people who never saw their waiter.

As for the question of pain -- Gregory asks it as if the Democrats must prove the willingness to inflict pain on somebody if they are to be considered serious participants in the debate.  The correct answer is, "why that word, David?  Wouldn't more prudent management seek to avoid pain?"  Another answer might be that there's plenty of pain out there already.

The rhetoric of bringing the country together to defeat the debt is seductive.  But, remember the restaurant.  It's really people asking you to pay for somebody else's steak.