Political Balance Elusive In Washington

With the deadline for action by the Cong- ressional “Super Committee” on Deficit Reduction fast approaching, will we see forward movement? Or will Congress and the country remain mired in petty partisanship driven by determination to gain political advantage?

The joint committee is supposed to devise a plan by Nov. 23 that would reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the committee can’t agree or if Congress doesn’t enact a reduction package by Dec. 23, acrossthe-board draconian cuts to domestic and defense programs totaling $1.2 trillion would be imposed, beginning in 2013.

Although there have been a few hopeful signs, it is widely expected that the committee will remain deadlocked. Concessions must occur if there is to be agreement and a substantial number in Congress show no willingness to go along with any action that might be seen as a compromise.

For too many, the only acceptable compromise is one in which the other side agrees to all of their demands.

We have already enduredenough tightrope walking this year during the disgraceful congressional debacle over the increase in the debt limit.

There are some, however, who are intent on more of the same, with little regard for the damage resulting from their intransigence. We have those whose primary concern is defeating President Barack Obama and preventing him from being able to claim any credit for actions to strengthen the economy.

There are others who are locked into a variety of unrealistic positions, including a failure to acknowledge the need to revise entitlement programs, among them Social Security and Medicare.

All of this despite Congress having the lowest approval ratings on record - in the neighborhood of 6 percent. Anyone who doubts the high level of public discontent must be in a coma. Income disparities have justifiablybecome part of the national narrative.

Yet, instead of serious steps to bolster the economy and improve our fiscal condition, we get platitudes and simplistic slogans. At least 41 senators and 235 House members have reportedly signed a pledge to oppose any tax increase, no matter what - forfeiting their ability to make independent judgments about what might be in the national interest at any given time.

Then there are those who insist it is all a matter of government waste, thatdoing away with “wasteful spending” will solve our problems. Government needs to be shrunk, but nondefense discretionary spending is small potatoes.

And when it comes down to it, there are numerous valuable and essential government programs that have strong public support.

For all the fulmination about the deficit, many of those who are now most intent on budget cutting seem to forget it was the staggering cost of the Iraq War that contributed mightily to our current fiscal predicament.

Some proclaim aconstitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is a panacea. But the amendment process is onerous and, even if a constitutional amendment did somehow gain approval, its effect would be far down the road. For now, it is mostly a political posture.

A recent infrastructure bill, which would provide sorely needed funds for roads, bridges, airports and mass transit and many new jobs in the process, had majority support in the Senate, but was blocked because it lacked the 60 votes necessary toovercome a threatened filibuster. Opponents did not like the 0.7 percent surcharge on the wealthiest taxpayers that would have funded the program.

Indeed, 33 Senate Republicans have signed a letter insisting any agreement from the “Super Committee” must not include a “net tax increase.” However, there was a flicker of hopeful realism when 40 House Republicans joined 60 Democrats in a letter saying “all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table.” And some GOP “Super Committee” members hinted they might consider crossing the antitax line in the sand.

What we need at this point is balanced spending, balanced cutting and balanced taxing.

Whatever the “Super Committee” does or doesn’t come up with, we have to get beyond the politicized paralysis that prevails in Washington.

We need legislators who will not be bound by rigid and misguided pledges, but who will act in the national interest and support a balanced approach to the deficit.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.