The Chicago Tribune has a simple prescription:
Here’s how it worked: In 2011, Congress authorized an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. The total included $1.2 trillion in specific spending cuts, and another $1.2 trillion to be identified later in 2011 by a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers known as the “Supercommittee.” When the Supercommittee failed to make a deal, across-the-board cuts in the growth of spending occurred.
But that consequence — call it Sequester 1.0 — hasn’t proved painful enough to prompt Democrats and Republicans to lay down their arms and end these constant budget battles.
We’d like to see that same approach again: Raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default, but force a debt fix within, say, three months or face a much more dramatic haircut to each party’s sacred cows. But a Sequester 2.0 would have to really hurt: Don’t again reduce the growth of spending. This time, reduce spending.
That is, raise the ante in order to force action on reducing accumulated debt that does confront the America as we know it with an existential threat. Forcing both parties, both branches of government, to put more chips on the table would be a responsible way to get results from a president and Congress that already are gambling with America’s future.
Our problems are actually simpler than that. We need to decrease defense spending. We need to decrease healthcare spending. Simple to say, hard to do.
People said the same thing about Sequester 1.0. The assumption that this would actually force both parties and branches of government to cooperate is foolish.
“We’d like to see that same approach again: Raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default, but force a debt fix within, say, three months or face a much more dramatic haircut to each party’s sacred cows. But a Sequester 2.0 would have to really hurt: Don’t again reduce the growth of spending. This time, reduce spending.”
Look!! Over there!! A unicorn!!
Michael has recently taken to crediting Obama about the reduction of the deficit. But its been a product of the sequester and the cessation of the payroll tax relief. The latter is called “fiscal drag.” The former the left would also label fiscal drag. I disagree.
In any event, just like after Bill Clinton’s “the end of Big Government” the deficit reduction is a Republican – read: marginal and weak, but at least material, throttle on public finances. Small victories.
We truly are on the fiscal version of the Titanic, and taxation is simply not going to fix it. Its just arithmetic and economic realities. The man currently at the helm is just clueless. If not clueless, he’s a reckless and crass man. We are headed for disaster.
Let’s just stipulate that McCain and Romney were not the right guys. (I vehemently disagree, BTW, about Romney; history will not treat this error by the voters well. I guarantee. It will show fools to be Obama voters.) Who is, then??
Hillary Clinton? Is any thinking person serious about this self aggrandizing and Obama-similar “I’m a celebrity, bit have no real credentials or experience” candidate? Really? Another 4-8 years of this pathetic politics-by-Jon Stewart show? (Although, he may be waking up.) And while every single group Mr. Obama professes to care about is going right into the toilet……….and he just blames everyone else and plays golf as if he has no role? Wow. Politics over reality writ large.
I, quite frankly, am at a loss. The country needs a great, great statesman, and a change agent. Unfortunately, Winston Churchill is not available, but I fear we are in need of someone of that stature.