Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 14 > Entry
Editorial: Voinovich on right path with debt plan
The most radical proposal being taken seriously in Congress these days is being put forth by a group of legislators typically referred to as the moderates: Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, for example, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut.
In a Congress that has been so extraordinarily polarized along party lines, and where a lot of huge stuff is pending, this genuinely bipartisan effort could be the biggest initiative yet.
The proposal: to create a bipartisan commission to make recommendations for dealing with the national debt, and to require Congress and the president to either accept or reject those recommendations as a whole.
Congress would be scaling back its role profoundly.
As the maker of the laws, it has always been the primary shaper of the laws.
There is a precedent, however: the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission that periodically recommends the closing of military bases. It works on the same take-it-or-leave-it basis. That process works. But this proposal is so much bigger. It would presumably affect Social Security, Medicare, military spending and taxes.
The moderates say the radical approach is justified because the debt is out of hand to a degree that threatens the well-being of the country, and because Congress has demonstrated its inability to handle the problem.
The deficit is record-breakingly monstrous, at $1.4 trillion. That is several multiples of what was considered horrendous just a couple of years ago.
The difference between deficit and debt needs to be understood. The deficit is an annual number. It’s off the charts this year because 2009 has been an off-the-charts year: extreme recession, bailout, stimulus. Some of the factors pushing the deficit up are expected to go away.
More troublesome is the debt, the total amount the government owes. That’s now in the range of $12.1 trillion. Some nonpartisan specialists say that in 10 years, the government will be spending $800 billion a year just repaying debt. That’s a fourth of the entire federal budget just a year ago.
Nobody knows for sure how much borrowing is too much for the economy. At what point do foreigners stop buying U.S. bonds for fear that they’re not a good investment? At what point do interest rates rise because of all the borrowing?
Everybody knows the current direction is bad.
President Barack Obama says, with good reason, that the heart of the problem is rising health care costs. He has promised (to some sneers) that the pending health care reform bill won’t increase the deficit. But others are saying it also won’t accomplish the original goal of reducing projected deficits.
Though the president has handled the economic problems of 2009 reasonably, at some stage he’ll have to turn a corner. He’ll have to say, OK, we did what was necessary then, but now we must focus on the debt.
He has blessed the commission idea, but only in general terms.
Moderate Democrats want to turn the corner now, so they don’t have to run in 2010 looking like big spenders.
Moderates in both parties want Congress to make a commitment to the commission idea in December, when Congress has to raise the debt ceiling to allow more debt to be issued.
Before too long, Congress does need to embrace the commission idea or come up with something else credible. It’s hard to image the latter happening.
The staunch conservative warriors are leery of the commission because it might raise taxes. Staunch liberals warriors are leery because it might cut spending in the wrong areas. But who sees them coming together?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, National Politics, Ohio politics
Comments
By Dave
November 14, 2009 6:18 PM | Link to this
I like this idea, but I wonder: Why now? Why not sometime in the past eight years as deficits were skyrocketing (as they continue to do)? Why only when he is a lame duck?
By Martin Gottlieb
November 14, 2009 11:24 PM | Link to this
Actually, Voinovich was also pretty active against deficits in the Bush years. He’s the reason the last Bush tax cut was temporary. Voinovich was the decisive vote, and he won that concession.———— He also used to vote against budgets and to generally rail against the deficit. He was considered one of the few “deficit hawks” in the Senate, though the truth is that he voted for all the real budget busters, including adding prescription drugs to medicare, the various wars and, in the end, even the tax cuts. ——- I guess he would say he’s moving on to this relatively radical idea now because nothing has worked, and things have only gotten worse.
By Kurt
November 16, 2009 6:09 AM | Link to this
Pass the Fair tax, and drill for our own oil, cut foolish environmental laws,and phony lawsuits, but communist democrats will never do that, it takes power away from their god(Gov) and puts it in the hands of the people.
By Ann
November 19, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this
Wow. No comments about replacing Congress by an unelected commission—what threat could be so great as to provoke that? Presumably, this commission of technocrats can actually understand the incredibly complex tax law which has brought this county into mortgage to a foreign power (China). Instead of a commission, why not make the economy comprehensible again —and thus democratic—by imposing a flat tax? Yes, it would cause this false Economy to crash (and hopefully international corporations to go elsewhere) but we need a real purge before we’re too weakened to withstand the treatment. But maybe it is too late. In December 2007, a Wall Street Journal editorial said not to fear the Chinese buying heavily into the US banking system because the U.S. could always nationalize the banks….wonder if that’s the reason for the Chinese army buildup.