I often disagree with Howard Gleckman, but I think he is right about the significance of this week’s ethanol vote in the Senate. But I suppose I have a different emphasis:

There will be much arguing about what that recipe should be. Should it be $1 of tax increases for each $3 in spending cuts? Or perhaps 40/60? That’s the kind of difference-splitting that lawmakers do best. But the point is, the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases can’t be 100/0. Coburn and other smart conservatives understand that voters will choke on breakfast when they see what $4 trillion in spending cuts look like. The public’s overwhelmingly negative response to House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to replace Medicare may have driven the point home.
Yesterday’s ethanol vote says that a majority of Senate Republicans agree with Coburn. Does that mean they are now ready to package hundreds of billions in tax hikes with spending cuts to make a deficit deal? Not all all. But they have taken an important step in the right direction.

I’m not comfortable with the idea that the closer we get to approving of hundreds of billions in tax hikes, the closer we are to the right answer. I do think, however, that base-broadening is an appropriate place to compromise, provided structural reform is part of the bargain. Ramesh Ponnuru has offered an excellent roadmap for what a middle-class-friendly base-broadening reform might look like.