Amid the reaction to President Obama's budget speech (ranging from it was terrific to it was "a disgrace") at least two columnists think his proposed trigger—Congress would have to cut more spending or raise taxes if deficit targets aren't met—is significant. This "may be the most important specific proposal in Obama’s plan, and a sign of its credibility, because it addresses the glaring flaw in almost every budget proposal: magical assumptions about economic growth, tax revenue, efficiencies and cost reductions," writes Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post. If those "magical" numbers don't materialize, "Congress is forced to act."
In his Post blog, Ezra Klein thinks the trigger is what differentiates Obama's "policy" plan from Paul Ryan's "ideology" plan. "Obama’s budget, aware that it might not pass and, if it does pass, it might not work, proposes to make automatic cuts to discretionary spending and tax expenditures if the promised savings don’t materialize. If Ryan’s budget falls short, there’s no comparable failsafe. That is to say, Obama’s budget has two plausible ways to get to its number, while Ryan’s budget has none."