SALINA, Kan. - President Obama and Speaker Boehner have both made their cases on deficit reduction to the American people. And it's no secret who's willing to compromise and who isn't. But worth pondering was Obama's provocative question, "When did compromise become a dirty word in Washington?"
Nearly every poll in sight shows that a solid majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans surveyed, want a compromise to the debt solution that includes both significant spending cuts and revenue increases. In short, Americans want real solutions, not ideological posturing. But there's a disconnect between citizens and their elected representatives. And it begs the question, why?
A large part of the reason surely lies in the way we elect our Congressman, or more to the point, in who finances our elections. Congressional elections have become extraordinarily expensive, largely due to the need to buy television advertising. Outside groups and their members pump large amounts of out-of-state money into targeted campaigns. And many members arrive in Washington already compromised by their associations with groups like Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth.
Grover Norquist, who heads the former group is particularly notorious for his efforts to get politicians to sign his pledge never to raise taxes, ever. Those who violate the pledge frequently find themselves facing a Norquist-funded primary challenger. The Week magazine cites Norquist's pledge as the main reason that Americans now pay the lowest percentage of their incomes in federal taxes since 1958.
To date 41 Senators and 235 Congressmen have signed the pledge. Consequently the wishes of a majority of members' constituents are trumped by the need to cater to this lucrative source of financing for the next election. Norquist, who once referred to bipartisanship as "date rape," has been called by Newt Gingrich as "the single most effective conservative activist in the country."
A Tea-Party leaning friend of mine recently shared his solution to our deficit problem with our morning coffee group. He proposed an across the board twenty percent cut in expenditures for all departments of the federal government. That way, he said, all departments would share in the pain equally. It was then pointed out to him that the feds borrow forty-two cents of every dollar they spend. His grand solution wouldn't even plug half of the hole.
Anyone taking an honest look at our debt problem should concur that burgeoning social programs like Social Security and Medicare, along with the ill-advised tax cuts at the beginning of the last decade are major components of the problem. Democrats have long resisted cuts to the former, since the programs were created by Democratic Administrations and Congresses. Likewise, Republicans are loath to admit the notion that huge tax cuts pushed through by President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress led to any of our current problems.
President Obama has finally brought Democrats to the table willing to trim entitlement spending. But some Republicans resist anything that would bring in more revenue, be it tax increases on the wealthy, the closing of loopholes or elimination of wasteful subsidies.
Republican plans have talked about trimming two to two and a half trillion in spending. The President wants a combination of cuts and revenue totaling four trillion.
The sad thing about this spectacle is that, if a compromise were to carry the day, the big winners would be any and everyone concerned about deficits and debt reduction.
Time is short. But one thing is clear. In the coming days we're going to find out who's really serious about tackling the problem.
Post your own comment here