Offering sobering steps toward fiscal sanity

By DAVID BRODER   Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— What Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have given America is the equivalent of a cold shower after a night of heavy drinking. It’s sober-up time.

The co-chairmen of the president’s commission on deficits and debt, in outlining the steps they said would be necessary to eliminate red ink and restore the budget to health by 2020, accomplished one great achievement: They made it impossible for anyone to pretend there are relatively easy or painless ways to dig out of the monumental fiscal pit we have fallen into.

For a full decade, our politicians have pretended to offer solutions to the budgetary dilemma that were no solution at all. Even before the Great Recession struck, Republican Congresses were playing charades with the approval of President Bush, and the nation was sinking deeper into debt each year.

President Obama came to office vowing that he would not just kick the can down the road to his successor. When he said this at a pre-inaugural meeting with Washington Post reporters, I believed that he meant it—and he did.

Bowles, the former Clinton White House chief of staff, and Simpson, the Republican former senator from Wyoming, never doubted that Obama was serious about the charge he had given them to clean up this mess. When I interviewed them in Boston last summer, they made it very plain they were going to lay out what it would take to solve this problem, in all its gory detail.

Some of the other members of the 18-person commission, charged with recommending action to Congress by Dec. 1, sounded shocked at what Simpson and Bowles had put before them. They should not have been.

Everyone and every institution will have to contribute—no, genuinely, sacrifice—if we are to repair the damage to our economic health. No area of government spending will be spared. Not the Pentagon, not Social Security and Medicare, not a single agency or bureau. The tax system will change and collect more from the people than it does now.

As this message sinks in, I think there is a chance that a realistic dialogue will occur in Washington. And oddly enough, divided government may help it along rather than interfere with its growth.

As the Bowles-Simpson recommendations are debated within the commission for the remainder of this month, we will learn two things: which of the many uncomfortable options are most objectionable to the most people. Those will have to be modified. And second, is there a core constituency anywhere prepared to step up and face the challenge?

The co-chairmen will hold people’s feet to the fire. What they have said is that every time they are told “I can’t support that,” their response will be, “so, what’s your alternative?” What is likely to emerge from that dialogue is a revised agenda that may come closer to commanding a majority in this divided Congress. No Democrat can believe, looking around, that he or she can protect all the programs passed since the New Deal and Great Society days. Not with all those Republicans and tea partiers sitting there with their knives out.

And no Republican, no matter how ideologically isolated, can believe that the Democrats whose votes will be needed for any package will permit all the sacrifices to be made only on the spending side—especially in the low-income programs.

I expect weeks and even months of protest and gnashing of teeth. But unlike others, I think in the end that reality will force accommodations, and when it does, there will be genuine reason for celebration.

What is happening right now in Britain, where Parliament is debating an austerity budget, will happen here as well. The new day of sobriety will begin.

David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at davidbroder@washpost.com.

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(20)
vatoloco
Nov 18, 2010 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal

Like a blogger said in this link below, "Who was the senator from Illinois that voted in favor of all spending when Bush was president? You guessed it.

vatoloco
Nov 18, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal

Here is another great link to explain Obama's spending nonsense.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past...

vatoloco
Nov 18, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal

"I guess those deficits aren't really important, if the most important thing is keeping tax breaks for the wealthy."

They are worthy of noting when you consider the rate and magnitude Oblunder's spending in two years. Oblunder's spending dwarfs the spending from 2000 to 2008.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush...

vatoloco
Nov 17, 2010 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal

"Eliminate the tax breaks and use the funds to cut the deficit."

yeah great idea.....Give more money to the fed to spend. yeah....

classyone
Nov 16, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal

Just to be clear there are NO TAX CUTS being proposed here by the administration. None for you and none for the RICH. Only an extension of the current tax structure is being debated in Washington.

facts101
Nov 16, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal

First you do not raise taxes in a recession unless you want to see a repeat. And I think someone already said it but I will repeat. You don't send more money to Washington than you have to. You force them to live within their means like every American has to do. The more money you send them the more ways they will find to piss it away. Bush did leave us with a huge deficit but Obama has taken it to new levels. Let me quote a bumper sticker I saw the other day. "Please don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion"

Olderandornerier
Nov 16, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal

For those of you who say let the tax cuts expire, you must remember that Obama said the middle class will not pay one dime more in taxes. The government collects too much in taxes as it is. It is a bloated pig.

FY 2009 $2,330,377,000,000 collected in taxes. The amount of taxes we already pay is criminal, anyone who thinks we should pay more is off their rocker.

classyone
Nov 15, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal

$250,000 income does not mean you are wealthy. If Obama really wants to tax the wealthy then the limit for that thershold should be raised to reflect truely wealthy. Maybe an income somewhere between $500k to 1M. I think the fight in Washington would disappear if they start talking in the above terms.

SuperDave
Nov 15, 2010 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal

"tax breaks for the wealthy"...Please spare us the class warfare nonsense janesvillean. This has been debunked so many times it is just really tiring.

janesvillean
Nov 14, 2010 at 10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal

Somehow, when a fellow named Bush was in office, deficits were not a matter of concern. Taxes were cut. A scheduled surplus was squandered. An expensive war was fought based on a falsehood. Then, as that man's term ended, the economy went into a tailspin. Suddenly, everything that we know is necessary to revive the economy is brushed aside, and gosh, deficits are so important that we have to do something about them right now! That thing is to keep taxes low! That will ...
.
Oh, no, wait, that will increase the deficit even more, and increase the debt even more.
.
I guess those deficits aren't really important, if the most important thing is keeping tax breaks for the wealthy.
.
You people don't even care that you don't make sense anymore.

BunBun
Nov 14, 2010 at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal

you can send every dime you own to state and federal government and it will never be enough. The more money politicians and bureaucrats have to play with, the more they will spend. Quite a bit of the blame rests with "use it or loose it" budgeting.

SuperDave
Nov 14, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal

Hi Sarah. I had to comment on your last post. You want us to give more money to the national government and that will somehow SAVE us billions?
I think you've got it backwards! Giving them more money will COST us billions.

SuperDave
Nov 14, 2010 at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal

What unbridled optimism!

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT