You're right, Page 2 is a keeper.  I can envision creating a whole new grassroots political movement based on the language in Page 2.  Page 2; long may it wave.

'The Moment of Truth' sounds like a typical Republican public relations title, in which the title always reflects the exact opposite of what's going on; think "No Child Left Behind" or "Clear Skies Initiative."

Sigh.  Now I've got to go read the stupid thing.  

I want to strangle people who say things like, "Every day, American families sit around the dinner table and make tough choices about their budgets" and then go on to demand that "our leaders in Washington do the same."

First, that American families sit around making tough choices about their budget is a problem to be solved, not a fact of life to be accepted.  It's certainly nothing to be proud of.

Second, what on Earth does it have to do with the Federal government?  Unless your family us a widely accepted issuer of sovereign currency, your concerns and the government's are quite different!

Third, the government choosing to cut spending on middle class programs while raising taxes on middle class wage earners will only serve to make those dinner table conversations harder for most people.

Fourth, seriously, I will strangle these people.

Fifth, after stomping them, stompingly.

I don't understand how broadening the tax base combined with a flatter tax rate could lead to a "just as progressive or more progressive tax" scheme than the one we have now. I see magic ponies frolicking in the front yard.

The proposal to get rid of all tax expenditures for corporations is exciting but the bath water should be checked for babies. A quick look at the list of tax expenditures (from those hippies at Brookings) show that the cost of real things are involved. If lowering the rate by x amount is done by transferring the cost to corporations and their customers, how does that maneuver liberate money to pay down the deficit? While there is money to be saved by closely examining the merits of these expenditures, getting rid of them as a class is the same thing as forbidding the government to create incentives of any kind. I suppose the finely tuned ethical code amongst corporations will fulfill the same function with lower total administrative cost. Win win.

I particularly enjoyed the Skinner Box rhetoric in the Social Security reform section:

Working longer and saving more has significant positive implications for both individuals and society as a whole. Yet the mixed signals sent to individuals often lead them to make less informed, and potentially precarious, choices. To help correct this, we propose directing SSA to provide better information to the public on the full implications of various retirement decisions, with an eye toward encouraging delayed retirement and enhanced levels of retirement savings. We encourage SSA to consider behavioral economics approaches (such as structured choice and others based in sound science) when providing this information.

Maybe we could put retirees back to work by training them to be retirement counselers. It hardly needs to be said that we will need to reduce management spending in the agency before introducing so much stimulation.

The tax reforms look similar to the ones from the Chairmen's mark (except the three marginal rates are 8, 14, and 23% instead of 9, 15, 24%). And the Tax Policy Center gave the following estimate of the changes:

"when compared with current law, the Chairmen’s Mark would reduce after-tax income in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution and would raise after-tax income in the top three quintiles, making the system on average less progressive."

So the poor will get poorer and the rich get richer. Which makes sense, since if there is one horrible injustice in the current system, its that the poor just aren't poor enough.

Mmmm, bipartisanship is wonderful, isn't it?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/bowles-simpson.cfm