All the righteous indignation on display this week over the federal budget stalemate has cable-news entertainment value, we suppose. But the spotlight also exposes the utter lack of seriousness shown by both parties about what truly is a long-term fiscal crisis.
Yes, the immediate fight over
funding the government for the remainder of the current fiscal year is important. A partial government shutdown, which would begin this weekend if a deal isn’t reached, isn’t a trivial matter. Just ask the Navy families in Everett and Oak Harbor who would receive IOUs rather than paychecks.
But the current debate over what and how much to cut between now and October is focused on a fraction of the enormous federal budget — a relatively modest slice known as non-defense discretionary spending. Cutting all of that would barely scratch the surface of a national debt that’s over $14 trillion and growing fast.
When the White House and Congress have this much trouble closing a deal when they’re just a few billion apart, without even touching the overarching challenges of entitlement and defense spending, it’s hard to be optimistic about the future.
Democrats blame tea party Republicans in the House, who they say are keeping GOP Speaker John Boehner from compromising. They have a point, but it’s also worth noting Democrats’ own culpability: They held majorities in both chambers of Congress last year, yet failed to pass a 2011 budget. Thus the continuing debate more than halfway into the fiscal year.
Democrats have also blasted the 2012 budget proposed this week by House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), an incomplete but interesting plan that actually addresses two of the biggest drivers of deficits, Medicare and Medicaid. It would slash spending on both, changing Medicare from a guaranteed insurance plan to a voucher system where seniors receive subsidies to buy private insurance.
Such a system may be fraught with unintended consequences, but it expands the debate over the future structure of Medicare to include greater personal responsibility in making choices. Ryan certainly took a political risk President Obama has so far been unwilling to take — his 2012 budget proposal punted on entitlement reform.
Bold as Ryan’s plan is, it can’t be considered a serious budget proposal, in that it continues deficit spending into the foreseeable future, avoiding major tax changes and cuts in defense spending.
The template for the serious and politically difficult reforms that must be faced was crafted last year by the president’s bipartisan deficit commission. Three Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate are said to be working on a plan along those lines. May they succeed in moving the debate in a more serious, if less entertaining, direction.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
