The FY 2013 budget that the Administration will release today is, in the long run, a meaningless document in substantive terms, so I don’t want to spend that much time on it. But I was a little surprised with the pushback I received about my assessment that it reflects a shift in tone rather than policy. It’s a simple fact that the Administration has wanted a deficit deal for some time, and that this budget will build in a deficit deal. They’re going about it in a smarter way with a higher bid in the negotiations.

I’ve seen a spate of stories recently suggesting that a economic recovery is fated to happen by 2013, and whoever wins the Presidential election will be able to claim the mantle of the “recovery President.” This is far too deterministic a take for me. There is such a thing as a business cycle, but to suggest that national policy cannot dislodge it ignores recent history and the candidates’ budget plans.

Rick Perry says the tax code is a mess, riddled with problems and is unsustainable. So his solution is to offer a choice between his “flat tax” and the current code. Wonder what rich people will choose?

One of the policy items you hear the Administration tout as part of defending their record is the food safety bill. Food policy experts considered it flawed, but generally a step in the right direction, and the first overhaul of the nation’s food safety system in decades. There’s every reason for the White House to use that as part of their list of accomplishments.

There’s only one thing: as a result of the legislation, the FDA has more responsibility but does not have more money.

We now have a CBO report on Harry Reid’s plan, and what once again sticks out is the extreme similarities with John Boehner’s. Remember that the Boehner plan had discretionary spending caps, a “Super Congress” committee to recommend deficit reduction, spending on program integrity for several programs, increases in Pell grants offset by student loan changes, and other budget process changes

As I noted in my last post, there aren’t a whole lot of differences between Harry Reid and John Boehner’s deficit reduction plans. As far as I can tell, there are two main differences…

By capping spending and forcing cuts the Gang of Six proposal is short on details but it is long on the chances it will cause a economic depression. It will impose a 2/3 super majority to raise spending, which means that not only would the Recovery Act not have passed, but neither would have the New Deal.

There have been no formal talks between the President and Congressional leaders for the last three days about raising the nation’s debt limit (though there has been “activity and progress” according to OMB Director Jack Lew), but the endgame is nonetheless coming into focus.

On a conference call, Chuck Schumer urged House Speaker John Boehner to renounce the threat to allow a default of the United States’ financial obligations by blocking an increase in the debt ceiling. This threat, even if it’s contrasted with an implicit guarantee to raise the debt limit eventually, could be enough to send the nation’s financial markets into a tailspin.

As we get more clarity on the menu of options in the upcoming budget debate, we’re seeing a narrowing of differences between the two parties. The Republicans may not want to admit it, but they’ve given up on changing the structure of Medicare. You can be sure of this by looking at the proposal of the Republican Study Committee, the far-right rump in the House (and it’s much more than a rump, including 3/4 of the entire House GOP caucus), which created a list of demands for increasing the debt limit. Even THEIR plan doesn’t mess with Medicare.