As we enter the weeks before Congress is finally forced to vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, hopes of passing a clean bill – one that lets the U.S. add to its debt without attached riders to make it also cut spending – seem all but [vanished](http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_senates_debtceiling_wild_cards). Instead it’s [looking](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will_the_white_house_lose_control_of_democrats_on_the_debt_ceiling/2011/04/13/AFFdBSEF_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein) like the debt ceiling vote will either be accompanied by Sens. **Bob Corker** and **Claire McCaskill**’s spending cap (the CAP Act) or a debt failsafe trigger like **Obama** proposed in his deficit speech. Tomorrow the Senate Finance Committee will hold a [hearing](http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/158239-senate-finance-will-hold-hearing-on-deficit-caps) on these and other options. As **Heather** [described](http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_spending_cut_by_any_other_name) yesterday, the CAP Act is a nightmare of political posturing and economic nonsense. By limiting spending to 20.6 percent of GDP, it decreases the government to a size not seen since the 1960s and binds congressional ability to respond to economic fluctuations. The CAP Act, the even more extreme Balanced Budget Amendment (which would lower spending to an almost unheard-of 18 percent of GDP), and others like them, have become popular with politicians who want to look tough on the deficit without advertising that they are cutting the programs Americans [value](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html). As such, it’s no wonder Obama has proposed something similar. His version, however, is based on sound economic policy and is actually pegged to the fiscal problem – rising debt – as opposed to simply enforcing an ideological vision about small government. He proposes that by 2014, if the debt-to-GDP ratio isn’t stable and projected to decline, the government should be forced to automatically trim spending. By pegging the trigger to the size of the debt instead of the deficit, Obama’s plan also takes revenue changes into account, meaning the country isn’t forever locked into its current low tax model. If the government starts to generate new revenue through tax reform, it can keep spending at current rates. Likewise if it starts receiving higher tax receipts from an improved economy, it isn’t prevented from spending the windfall if it so chooses. In this time of widespread economic insecurity and declining living standards, the President also protects the fundamental programs of the welfare state. Although his debt trigger cuts would be across-the-board, there would be exceptions for Social Security, Medicare and low income programs, meaning the social safety net would be preserved and automatic stabilizers like food stamps and welfare payments would continue to stimulate the economy during a recession. Unlike the CAP Act, Obama’s plan takes a balanced approach by cutting both direct spending and the significant amount of indirect spending that the government carries out through the tax code. Even deficit hawks **Erskine Bowles** and **Alan Simpson** admit (http://templatelab.com/the-mom
