When we start debating the next 10 years budget and Ryan's plan is on the table with Obama's "counter", watch what happens.  Simpson Bowles will become the new center.  That will be the new "pragmatic" and "serious" effort to reform government - a good "compromise" between the Obama and the Tea Party.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama plans to propose tax increases and cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare to reduce the deficit. Administration officials hope his proposal might lead to a deal with Republicans.

Another possible avenue--one high-profile proposal among a series--comes from a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators who are close to a plan that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.), one of the key members of the group, said Monday. That package could be advanced within 30 days.

Mr. Warner said the White House is "very aware of our efforts" and "would like to see us succeed."

From the linked WSJ article, it's very hard to believe that this is negotiating or bargaining as much as it is advancing the agenda Obama supports.

And what to make of this?

While all the details of Obama's plan have yet to be unveiled, Chambliss predicted the Gang of Six's plan will be more moderate than the president's -- and he and Warner also suggested they will try to raise revenues and directly target defense spending, two issues largely left out of Ryan's proposal.

Chambliss said the plan will aim to cut spending across the board, including on agriculture programs -- which have been off-limits to many farm-state lawmakers. Reforming entitlements, such as cutting benefits to Social Security -- which many Democratic senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, strongly oppose -- seems to be on the table, Warner suggested.

Tax rates will be lowered across the board, while cutting tax deductions and credits, such as mortgage deductions on second homes, is an idea the group is pursuing.

Gang of Six, Paul Ryan, the president: all driving down the same road, all going the same place.  All on that road through wholly dishonest debate on the deficit, creating a crisis where none exists, in service to their agendas - none of which seem to place any emphais on safeguarding the social safety net, even as they advance plans that will further depress the economy and put more lives on the financial brink.

And now, word comes that Obama's going to back Simpson-Bowles...

It's a damn train wreck.  

"Here's a poll in January showing that 71% of Americans oppose increasing the debt ceiling. Here's a poll in February putting the number at 62%. Here's another one from March putting it at 60%. And here's one from April that put it at 62% after it was explained that raising the debt ceiling meant the United States might default on its debt.

Now, I don't think these numbers will stay this high once the debt ceiling fight takes center stage and everyone gets a better idea of what it really means to refuse to raise it. Still, like it or not, liberals have long since lost the public opinion battle over the deficit. Poll after poll makes it clear that most people want to cut federal spending and don't want to raise the debt ceiling. Sure, it's a vague sentiment, and it falls apart when you ask them what they want to cut, but the fact remains that the public is largely on the Republican side of this battle right now. I happen to agree with Chait and others that Obama would be better off sticking to his guns and demanding a clean bill, but it's also worth acknowledging that this strategy starts from the bottom of a pretty deep hole. As usual, the liberal community has done a crappy job of selling the public on our perspective. Now we're paying the price."

Sure, it's a vague sentiment, and it falls apart when you ask them what they want to cut, but the fact remains that the public is largely on the Republican side of this battle right now.

Obviously, our arguments look better if you parse through all of the items but (a) most people don't parse through every item and (b) we don't take their votes away simply because they have not.