It should be on the table.

Why shouldn't EVERYTHING be on the table? After all, if you want to have your sacred cows, I will want mine and nothing can get done.

I'm good with that.

Everything will be on the table quote-unquote. However as long as their continued employment is the main concern, it doesn't behoove politicians to cross their base constituency. IOW I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it's nothing but lips flapping.

I'm assuming you're talking about costs going up when revenues go down.

Thats the difference between government and the private sector - government is supposed to be doing the things that can't (or if they could, maybe shouldn't) be done for a profit. Things like food stamps, national defense, fire fighting, driver's licensing, etc., are not things that can be easily or ethically done by private companies.

Of course, governments should be responsibly run, as efficient as possible, and be responsive to it's customers, but the vast majority of government work is a money losing proposition. That's why it's doing it in the first place.

Regarding the mortgage deduction...
Since it was enacted by Congress many years ago, and many people have made buy/ rent decisions based upon that provision, is it fair to remove it immediately? If it is decided to remove it, would it not be more "fair" to phase it out over a number of years?

It was enacted because it was felt that people who owned rather than rented provided more stability to the community. Perhaps that basic assumption should be the reason for removing it; not simple economic expediency.

Sorry, but each group will want exemptions....make it simple. No deductions, no income tax. Go with a national retail sales tax.

It's also the way the government runs the railroad -- little to do with profit/loss and everything to do with constituency bribery.

They should be doing it because they have no axe to grind. For instance, you are the basturd that stole my identity and racked up charges in my name or so my story goes. I am the basturd that falsely accused you, so goes your side. Govt is there to provide neutral arbiters to the issue. After all, you wouldn't want my brother to arbitrate the matter any more than I want your sister in it. Reason is you can't get a fair hearing if someone could be biased. In that line, they should be the arbiter and NOT a play AND an arbiter. After all, would you want a referee who is member of the opposing team? Probably not. Govt should be run with the idea that you have the freedom to PURSUE happiness. As the judge who swore me in said "It is NOT a guarantee of happiness". IF you get it, great. If not, that's life. Right now, govt is being called on to deliver happiness which is why it gets into a lot of the stuff it shouldn't be in and inefficient stuff too.

But how to ensure efficiency if there is no consequence?

Of course not. I have a 15 year mortgage on my house so I will rather it be phased out say in 16 years. IF I buy another house tomorrow with a 30 year mortgage, I want it to be phased out in 31 years. More if I refinance.