Fiscal Follies: The Leaders, the Led and the Gridlock on the Budget

It seems hard to disagree with the 8 in 10 Americans who say Congress is doing a terrible job in wake of the dismal, dispiriting debate over raising the debt ceiling. We dodged a needless and potentially devastating government default, but aside from that, this debt deal is largely a failure. The brutal debate produced an 11th hour band-aid, but it damaged the government's standing at home and abroad, and it's still not enough to get the nation's finances off their unsustainable path.

In fact, the main accomplishment -- apart from making the U.S. government look both arrogant and inept -- was to set up another crisis for December (just in time for the holidays). That's when the "trigger" mechanism will make automatic (and very severe) cuts if Congress can't agree on a more sensible solution.

And after all that, Standard and Poor's downgraded the United States government's credit rating anyway. It's hard to see how leaders of any political stripe walks away from this proud of what they've achieved.

But there's another point of view on this, which is actually pretty widespread among Washington policymakers and the media. Slate's Jacob Weisberg pretty much summed this up when he wrote "there's no point in explaining complicated matters to the American people." In this view, elected officials in Washington are just reflecting a nation that's divided about the role of government and completely unrealistic about what it will take to reduce deficit spending and get the country's finances back on track.

There is plenty of polling to show just that. For example, 51 percent of Americans say "government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people," while 46 percent say "government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals." Meanwhile, 6 in 10 say government should be "smaller and provide fewer services," but mention the specifics, and that view crumbles to dust. Large majorities of Americans oppose cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions to federal workers. Majorities even oppose cutting subsidies to farmers, and 52 percent oppose cuts in defense.

What's an elected official to do? There's simply no way to follow those instructions, and get the country out of its fiscal mess.

But at this point, arguing over whether leaders or the public deserve more of the blame is the equivalent of fighting over who gets to wear the captain's hat on the Titanic, after hitting the iceberg. Leaders haven't done much leading, and the public desperately needs a better grasp of what it takes to really put the government's budget on a sound footing.

But we do get another chance in a few months, so is there any way to avoid the instant replay?

Frankly, we're not that optimistic. The Congressional "super committee" seems set up to fail, and at this point, we're not sure its report will carry any more weight than any of the dozens of budget plans that have come out in the last couple of years. The debate over its recommendations and the triggers will be vicious. To the public, it will look like another vaguely repulsive food fight. The cable news commentators will endlessly and reflexively pontificate about what it all means for the election -- forget what it means for the country's future. And we'll end up about where we are with (a) a budget that is neither sustainable nor helping the economy, and (b) a 82 percent disapproval rating for Congress -- maybe even worse. The country will be divided and demoralized. Nobody will win -- at least no one in the United States.

But suppose we actually spent the next few months talking about what parts of government matter most to us, what we're willing to pay for them, and where we're willing to compromise to protect the goals that we value most. Throw out the politics for a moment, and however you feel about Tea Partiers, progressives, Eric Cantor, the president or anybody else. Put the election predictions on pause. Let's talk about what's most essential to protect, and where we're willing to give to get a deal.

These are questions just every American should be able to answer, and we're pretty confident that most people can. After all, all those polls that show how unrealistic Americans are also show that most prefer a settlement that blends spending cuts and revenues -- just like nearly every commission report and study out there (and that includes many conservatives).

In Greece, people took to the streets when the government decided that some status quo benefits had to be trimmed. We'll place our bets that most Americans have already accepted that they won't get everything they want from a meaningful budget deal, but that they want the Congress to pass one anyway.

Will the country's leaders step up to the plate? Well, at least they didn't let the United States slide into default, which actually wasn't a sure bet just a few weeks ago. After all the mess and the backbiting, most members of Congress decided that protecting the "full faith and credit of the United States" was an important step to take.

Maybe the next time, they can do better. Maybe they'll even decide to demonstrate the realism, judgment, candor, and honor that the American people have every right to expect.

 

 

 

Follow Scott Bittle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheEnergyBook

Comments

[William Hunter Duncan]

07:32 PM on 08/08/2011

I'm for pulling back on the role government plays considerably, considerable increases in taxes on the wealthiest, paying off the debt in the short term, and a moratorium on shipping raw materials and resources off the continent. That was called protectionism in the past. In a world of scarce resources, that is called simple sense and a concern for domestic welfare.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com

[American 69]

10:49 AM on 08/08/2011

Whenever there's a difficult decision that congress or the President has to make, do they actually make that decision and move on ? No, they form a "committee" to discuss this. That's just a method of avoiding responsibility for anything ! Is this the quality of "executive" thinking we have in our capitol ? Evidently so.
Our Representatives don't represent. Our representatives go through the motions and are certainly "process oriented" but NOT "results oriented". Why then are they there ?
If they can't legislate and if they can't actually consider and debate an issue and come up with a compromised decision, then why did we send them there ? The ego's I see and the poseurs rampant in congress are more theater than government. The present disapproval rate for congress is 82%, what happens when it reaches 100% ? Can we send them home ?
In other countries, the Prime Minister can call an election any time when confidence in government is a problem. Can we do that here?

[lrobb]

10:17 AM on 08/08/2011

If you want to both educate the public and get their input, turn it into a video game. No, really, I'm serious. Something like the old SimCity, but with rules which reflect the economic and social facts on the ground in the US. (No turning Vermont Conservative, and you can't turn South Carolina liberal. Unemployment and tax revenues should exactly match reality.)

Let people decide if they want their avatar to be a CEO, a stockbroker, the mayor of a small town, a Senator, a Governor, etc and then let them have a go at it.

Advertise the heck out of it. Encourage high school civics classes to play. Give it enough levels that Granny is comfortable playing at the easiest. Start thinking outside the box, guys!

[den1953]

10:01 AM on 08/08/2011

Maybe the blame game should end and a game plan be more in line to get this nation moving?

[johnvilvens]

08:53 AM on 08/08/2011

Kids play together. This article help solve the problem. There are fundemental differences in the parties. As long as there is the blame game and no one will stand up and say our ideas did not work and we will have to chamge directions we get no where. When reelection is more important then doing thier jobs we will alway have a mess. When congress and the senate get back they will deal with it. When Obama get back from fundraisers and his bus trip he is going to take a vacation. Then he will see what solutions other have come up with and ignore them.

[dwmulenex]

08:29 AM on 08/08/2011

we need a few words of clarity, in writing, from Mr. Obama. his sensible view of brin ging revenues up to historical levels, and reducing spending to historical levels, was lost in the battering ram of criticism directed towrd his refusal to send a plan in writing to majority fig watcher in chief Reid, who chose a fig leaf over a fig--as usual. The president needs to tell us what we will get from shared sacrifice, and what we'll lose, or not get.raising the kick in age for social security and medicare to 67 starting in 2027 is probably ok, if we also raise the cap to a decent level, and get a real handle on reducing health costs to the overall inlflation level. A flatter tax structure may be ok, as long as it is realistic: expecting families in minimum wage jobs to pay additional taxes just increases the poverty rate or the need for poverty programs run by governments. Reducing the corporate tax rate may be ok too, but it can only come into effect when all the special breaks and loopholes are gone. Our government can't get into sync to meet social needs which support opportunity and wealth from investing in the U.S. economy. The problem isn't too few economists or too many tea party nutjobs. It's too little courage, too much self interest by people we elected to make decisions to benefit, not dismantle the nation. They should hang their heads in shame.

[new 10 ole ole]

09:55 PM on 08/07/2011

250 word limit extension--

Give all undocumenteds and their families a shot at citizenship thru halographic ID's and employer sponsorships. If undocumenteds not working then there needs to be strict enforcement of the illegal immigration laws agains them.

Let local counties, cities and states determine means and methods to teach children-- Keep Uncle Sam out of the picture.

Set up 2% national sales tax immediately---it is needed to have funding for bankrupt cities, counties and states in the coming months.

Go back to 1999 tax tables immediately (and increase capital gains on folks with C G in excess of $1 million per year). The loophole cancelation strategy does not work---the reason the loopholes were put in place was to get segments of our workforce productively working thru tax incentives. They exist, and they are not just for the rich.

Phase in S S . medicare cuts over 20 years (do not do as O Care does ---slash $1.1 trillion in favor of union favors).

[new 10 ole ole]

09:45 PM on 08/07/2011

It is interesting to see "inside the beltway" mindset from Weisberg.--

"But there's another point of view on this, which is actually pretty widespread among Washington policymakers and the media. Slate's Jacob Weisberg pretty much summed this up when he wrote "there's no point in explaining complicated matters to the American people." In this view, elected officials in Washington are just reflecting a nation that's divided about the role of government and completely unrealistic about what it will take to reduce deficit spending and get the country's finances back on track."

This country can prosper.
Get rid of the Obama "I will bankrupt you!" attitude --
Get rid of the "snail darters are more important than US citizens" mindset,
Get rid of Obama "I want to know whose ass to kick" attitude (no matter that he ruins the economy by slowing down US oil and gas production & everything he touches)-
Get the Canada Pipeline to TX/Louisiana-
Get Alask production and pipelining at full capacity (drill on govt protected lands and get rid of epa hindrances)-
Cut all govt pay 5% and lower govt benefits by 1% per yr for 20 years. -
Knock off all special Congressional retirement benefits-
Fine potus and congress members each $1,000 per day for every day after Sept 30th that official balanced budget is not passed.-
Restrict all news in Washington DC to Fly over reporters/journalists and assign all inside the beltway journalists to Moscow-

[nmcginni]

07:21 PM on 08/07/2011

There should be an odd number on the committee, with a simple majority vote. If Fannie and Freddie get downgraded there might be some way to get them to work out a deal. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the negotiations to come up with any solutions.