How Washington uses budget wars to duck hard choices

In Washington's current dysfunctional atmosphere, attempts at real tax reform are likely to get lost in the cacophony, Gleckman writes. But for many in Washington, replacing serious debate with loud short-term squabbles over phony fiscal crises is exactly the idea.     

|
Charles Dharapak/AP/File
The dome of the US Capitol Building is seen as the sun sets on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has notified Congress that the U.S. government will reach the limits of its ability to borrow in mid-October.  Lew’s letter sounds the opening notes of the overture to this fall’s fiscal grand opera. Between October 1 and the end of the calendar year, President Obama and Congress will battle over the debt limit, fiscal 2014 spending, and a fistful of expiring tax provisions.

A dwindling few see this depressing confluence of fiscal deadlines as an opportunity to reach the long-awaited Grand Bargain. But in reality it is just the opposite, an excuse to avoid the tough choices of tax and entitlement reform. After all, it is easier for Washington to battle over self-made, short-term crises than resolve structural tax and spending challenges. 

If you are a Republican, it is easier to demand that the Affordable Care Act be defunded than to back tough, specific cuts to Medicare. If you are Democrat, it is easier to rail against the inequities of the sequester than kill government programs that don’t work. And if you are a politician of either party, it is much easier to embrace the vague concept of tax reform than to cut specific popular tax preferences. 

But having raised the profile of the great budget debate, lawmakers can’t just walk away from it. This is especially true for Republicans, who must somehow satisfy their tea party wing. But Democrats have something of the same problem with their left, weakened as that faction is these days.  So they need a distraction from the tough choices. What better diversion than a good headline-generating brawl.  

While a handful of lawmakers seem serious about remaking fiscal policy, most have a different agenda: Saving face without doing much at all.

Thus between now and New Year’s Day Washington will focus on trivia. Will the debt limit be extended for six months or a year? Will Congress fund 2014 agency budgets at sequester levels, Obama’s proposed levels, or something in the middle—an argument likely to center on about 1 percent of total federal spending?

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) says that in October–in the midst of all that noise—he’ll propose his version of tax reform. In a healthy political environment, Camp’s plan would kick off a welcome debate over tax reform. But in the current dysfunctional atmosphere, it is likely to get lost in the cacophony. This will be too bad. But for many in Washington, replacing serious debate with loud short-term squabbles over phony fiscal crises is exactly the idea.      

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How Washington uses budget wars to duck hard choices
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2013/0827/How-Washington-uses-budget-wars-to-duck-hard-choices
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe