Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Earlier today, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission released their draft proposal (a.k.a. chairmen’s mark) to reduce the deficit. This is not the final report of the fiscal commission, but it is likely going to be the starting point for the remainder of the panel’s discussions. There’s a lot in there, but let’s highlight three good ideas and three bad ideas. Here are the good ideas:

– Defense Cuts: The chairmen’s mark includes about $100 billion in what they call “illustrative” cuts to military spending. These cuts would be used to meet an overall discretionary target of about $174 billon in savings compared to the president’s budget. Their suggested cuts are similar to the Center for American Progress’ own suggestions, and it’s nice to see them take seriously the fact that defense cuts have to be a part of the solution.

– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions: The proposal includes about $3 billion a year in cuts to agriculture subsidies. This is a big step in the right direction. Experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly called for these subsidies to be substantially reduced. Even President Bush thought so. If we’re going to cut wasteful or unnecessary spending, this is the place to start.

– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.

As for the bad ones:

– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs: The plan seems to suggest about one dollar in non-defense discretionary cuts for every dollar in defense cuts. I can understand the political logic of this, but substantively it’s a really bad idea. Non-defense discretionary dollars go to pay for some very crucial things like veteran’s health care, education, science and health research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement. $100 billion in cuts represents a greater than 15 percent reduction on all these things. Unlike the defense cuts – which could be implemented without harming national security – this level of reduction to such a wide array of public services would really hurt.

– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age: This is a popular idea in certain Washington circles, but as Matthew Yglesias says, it is “basically the very most regressive way to reduce entitlement spending.” There are better ways to bring Social Security into 75 year actuarial balance than asking people to work longer.

– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

During the congressional battle over Wall Street reform, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) advanced a bill to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and grant it the power to write and enforce rules governing payday lenders, debt collectors, and other financial companies that are not part of banks. This was not popular with key Republicans. In March, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who played a crucial role on behalf of Republicans in negotiating the bill, “pressed Mr. Dodd to scale back substantially the power that the consumer protection agency would have over such companies.” The Republican counter-proposal set forth in May by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also attempted to exempt these industries, prompting President Obama to rip the plan as “worse than the status quo” with “dangerous carve outs for payday lenders, debt collectors, and other financial services operations.”

These Republican efforts to insulate debt collectors from further regulation were ultimately unsuccessful, leading the industry’s trade group, the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA), to blast the new law as “overreaching.” “Lawmakers and regulators need to understand, we are not the enemy… .[T]hird-party debt collectors are the last ray of hope for consumers who might otherwise have to file bankruptcy,” said ACA’s CEO.

Yesterday, however, a shocking lawsuit brought by the state of Pennsylvania against a debt collector in Erie, PA illustrates why federal oversight is necessary for the industry, which deals with vulnerable people often on the brink of financial collapse. Unicredit America Inc. is accused of using phony Sheriff’s deputies and a corporate office decorated as a courtroom to confuse debtors into thinking they were in legal trouble in order to coerce them into making immediate payments. According to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office:

Consumers also allegedly received dubious ‘hearing notices’ and letters – often hand-delivered by individuals who appear to be Sheriff Deputies – which implied they would be taken into custody by the Sheriff if they failed to appear at the phony court for ‘hearings’ or ‘depositions’….Fictitious court proceedings were used to intimidate consumers into providing access to bank accounts, making immediate payments or surrendering vehicle titles and other assets – sometimes dispatching Unicredit employees to consumers’ homes in order to retrieve documents or have consumers sign payment agreements.

[Attorney General Tom] Corbett said Unicredit allegedly used civil subpoenas to summon consumers to an office in Erie, which included an area referred to by Unicredit employees as “the courtroom.”

The fake courtroom allegedly contained furniture and decorations similar to those used in actual court offices, including a raised “bench” area where a judge would be seated; two tables and chairs in front of the “bench” for attorneys and defendants; a simulated witness stand; seating for spectators; and legal books on bookshelves. During some proceedings, an individual dressed in black was seated where observers would expect to see a judge.

Watch a local news report:

According to the website of the ACA — the debt collection trade group that claimed they were “not the enemy” — Unicredit has been a member since 2009.

A handful of Republicans, at the same time that they’re trying to seize the high-ground when it comes to fiscal responsibility, have scoffed at the notion that extending the Bush tax cuts should be considered a cost to the federal government. “I disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). “You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, pay for?” asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The latest Republican to join this parade is Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), who is slated to take over the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee charged with writing tax legislation. “I don’t think you have to pay for extensions of current law,” Camp said on CNBC last night:

I don’t think you have to pay for extensions of current law. Look, the idea that people have to pay to keep more of their own money, I think makes no sense, and particularly as we really need some long-term economic growth in this country, we need a pro-growth agenda, and all the talk of tax increases makes that less likely to occur.

Watch it:

Of course, if we applied Camp’s logic to all federal tax and spending initiatives, nothing would ever “cost” anything. Want to extend Food Stamp benefits for another year? It’s current law, so it’s free!

Back in the real world, extending the Bush tax cuts will cause federal revenues over the next ten years to be nearly $4 trillion lower than they would have otherwise been. $830 billion of that will be spent to finance tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans alone. And foregoing that revenue makes reducing the deficit, which Camp also professed a deep concern about, that much harder.

Now, Camp likely feels that deficit spending is totally acceptable, so long as it lowers the marginal tax rates of the rich. But instead of admitting that, he’s trying to have it both ways, complaining about the deficit while simultaneously advocating steps that make the deficit worse.