Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
News Opinion Editorial

Supercommitte collapse: Now it's the people's turn

Who's to blame is the question of the day in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats have been rushing to point fingers ever since the deficit-cutting supercommittee admitted failure and stopped negotiations. But for the rest of the country, the exercise is not particuarly productive. Both sides took positions and held to them, and both concluded that what the other side proposed was worse than the consequences of failing to reach a deal — about $1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts, split about evenly between domestic programs and defense. The only questions that really matter are which party had the better proposal and whether the American people can pressure the other side to accept it before they administer another election-day shellacking.

The public has been pretty clear in opinion polls about which party laid out the proposal it most agreed with, and that is the Democrats. In various iterations over the last several months, President Barack Obama and members of the supercommittee offered up plans along the lines of those agreed to by a majority of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission last year: cuts in defense and domestic spending, reforms to the major entitlement programs, and tax increases targeted toward the wealthy. The principle they stood behind is this: Cuts to domestic programs and entitlements most directly harm the middle class and the poor, and they would not accept that without some contribution to the solution from the rich. That's not class warfare, it's common sense.

Although Republicans are now trying to claim that none of those proposals was serious because they didn't have the signed support of all six Democratic supercommittee members, the truth is that there was substantial agreement among the Democrats — and, more importantly, a willingness by the president to get behind such a deal, even if it meant a 2 to 1 ratio of cuts to tax increases. Republicans, divided among moderates who could be persuaded to make a deal and a tea party wing that abhors compromise, have never been able to put any kind of muscle behind a serious attempt to reach agreement on deficit reduction. The most Republican supercommittee members could muster was an offer to raise taxes by $300 million — and offset almost all of that new revenue by making all the Bush tax cuts permanent and reducing the top income tax bracket to 28 percent. And the Republicans who floated that idea were pilloried for it.

It's also ridiculous for Republicans to claim that the committee's failure is the result of insufficient participation in the process by President Obama. It makes no sense for those dedicated to Mr. Obama's defeat next year to suggest that his involvement would somehow have brought the two sides together.

Now some Republicans are trying to find a way to squirm out of the defense cuts that are part of the penalty for the supercommittee's failure. President Obama is quite right to promise to veto any such legislation. The Pentagon budget surely needs to be reduced in order to bring down the deficit, but across-the-board cuts aren't the best way to do it. Still, a belief in Washington that there need be no consequences for a failure to act responsibly is what got us in this mess in the first place. The mandatory cuts the nation now faces don't go into effect until 2013, so there is theoretically time to strike a deal before the most damaging effects of the supercommittee's collapse are felt. But that won't happen if Congress votes to remove the noose it placed around its own neck.

What needs to happen next is for Congress to renew the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extension that are due to expire at the end of the year, both items that should have been included in the supercommittee's work. If those measures are not approved, the tepid economic recovery will sputter and make the deficit even worse. Beyond that, the American people need to make clear to their representatives and senators that the consequence they face for failing to come to a fair and responsible agreement to cut the deficit is one they fear more than automatic defense cuts: losing an election. If that prospect is not enough to persuade them to do the right thing, they deserve what they get.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Schaller fails to see danger of U.S. debt

    Columnist Thomas F. Schaller's analysis is incredibly myopic ("Avoiding Europe's austerity nightmare," April 18). To compare the economic condition of the U.S. to those of Greece or Spain at the beginning of the economic crisis is comparing apples and oranges.

  • Military spending is misplaced U.S. priority

    On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs — education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the pressing...

  • A better budget remedy than the Buffett rule

    You end your editorial on the Buffett Rule ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13) with the question, "Where will the $50 billion come from to balance the budget, if not from this minimum tax plan?"

  • Skeptical of Buffett and need for higher taxes

    First, I'm an 80-year-old living on Social Security, and I know all the tax loopholes need to be closed ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13). But isn't it correct that Warren Buffett owes the IRS a great deal of taxes for a number of years? Let's have a true picture of Mr. Buffett.

  • The Buffett Rule backlash

    The Buffett Rule backlash

    Our view: Taxing the wealthy at rates others already face wouldn't solve the nation's deficit, but it would restore a modicum of fairness to the tax code

  • Godless Republicans turn back on poor and sick

    Some churchmen take exception to some of President Barack Obama's positions on matters of faith. I suggest these men of faith take a closer look at the true meaning of religion. All three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — have as their central theme the commandments to protect...