“Doing nothing” isn’t a particularly bold plan for cutting the debt; in fact, it isn’t even a plan. But as Annie Lowry points out at Slate, “doing nothing” is actually a pretty good option if you’re genuinely serious about debt reduction:
First, doing nothing means the Bush tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, at the end of next year. That would cause a moderately progressive tax hike, and one that hits most families, including the middle class. The top marginal rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, and some tax benefits for investment income would disappear. Additionally, a patch to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million or so families would end.
Second, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law, would proceed without getting repealed or defunded. The CBO believes that the plan would bend health care's cost curve downward, wrestling the rate of health care inflation back toward the general rate of inflation. Third, doing nothing would mean that Medicare starts paying doctors low, low rates. Congress would not pass any more of the regular "doc fixes" that keep reimbursements high. Nothing else happens. Almost magically, everything evens out.
Unfortunately, the do-nothing plan is something of a political loser. Not only does it raise taxes on nearly all Americans (not just the rich), but it harms a powerful interest group (doctors), and runs counter to the pervasive idea that seemingly big problems require appropriately "big" solutions. I guarantee that if, today, President Obama made the case for "doing nothing," he would find himself under fire for his "timidity" by pundits, Republicans and members of his own party.
To be fair, this is a recurring fact of political life; when problems arise, elites demand that politicians do "something," regardless of whether that "something" is effective, or even worthwhile. Indeed, I'm certain that our politics would be in much better shape if everyone accepted that "nothing" is sometimes a viable alternative.
