Our Views: A short fix, not a solution

Vote for the mess. It’s important.

Slightly amended from the famous bumper sticker of the Edwin Edwards-David Duke governor’s race — “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.” — the last-minute tax deal in Washington ought to inspire much ambivalence among the American people.

The Senate and House finally signed off on a deal to avoid a year-end mandated series of tax increases and budget cuts that were called the “fiscal cliff.”

At the end, with senators and congressmen working themselves into a partisan stalemate, it took a series of phone calls between two seventy-something veterans of the Senate — Republican leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, and Vice President Joe Biden — to settle on something that could get a majority, somehow, some way.

What is worrisome is that this is hardly the kind of thoughtful reaching-across-the-aisle process that will corral enough votes in Congress to really address the huge looming problem of the budget deficits facing this country.

By and large, we agree with the members who voted for the bill, including both U.S. senators from Louisiana. However, the no-compromise wing of the Republican Party in the House found several adherents in the Louisiana delegation, with only one of six GOP House members from the state backing the compromise.

The nature of compromise is that it is not perfect. An easy “no” vote did not reflect well on the House members, who apparently preferred deadlock and chaos to the Biden-McConnell deal.

But the problem is that there is still a hangover to be faced in the New Year. We agree with a Deutshe Bank economist, Joseph LaVorgna, who told The Associated Press that the deal does not amount to a final fix. “There are much bigger philosophical issues that we aren’t even addressing yet,” he said.

Maybe it is beyond the power of America’s splintered society to make this work.

We called for compromise that would last, with President Barack Obama and Republicans agreeing to a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that would get the economy out of the political spin cycle for a while, maybe even a couple of years. The benefits of stability would be substantial, even if none of us likes to pay more in taxes.

That is definitely not the result of this last-minute approval of a mess.

Comments

1) Comment by agagent - 05/01/2013

In FY 2007 the federal government spent $2.962 trillion (adjusted for inflation), including about $125 billion on the wars, and we had a deficit of $174 billion. Two years later with the Democrats in control of the federal government federal spending increased to $3.696 trillion and we had the a record deficit of $1.484 trillion. The wars did not cause the trillion deficits. The stimulus and increases in entitlement caused Osama’s $5.8 trillion in deficit spending in four years.

2) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

I'm with you on that one, Msfan.

3) Comment by Msfan - 04/01/2013

A huge part of the debt is war costs. A tax to retire the costs of the two wars needs to be passed to be retired when those costs are paid. It should be used ONLY for war debt. Those members of the military who have served should be exempt from this tax, they have already given. If the service member was killed in combat, his surviving spouse should be exempt. Why has no one ever suggested this? In no other instance in the history of the US have tax cuts been instituted during a war as have been done during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It should be up to all citizens, except those who have served in those wars to pay this debt.

4) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

agagent, you're information is technically right...but misleading. That 4 trillion you keep bringing up is compared to what would have happened had we simply gone over the "cliff" and raised taxes and cut spending (which may have reversed the already fragile recovery). If you leave that bit out, you don't get the whole picture. And no, Obama didn't get everything he wanted. Initially, he wanted $1.6 trillion a year....he got $60 billion. Do the math... since when does $40 = just about everything? Rounding up quite a bit to make your point, eh?

5) Comment by phil - 04/01/2013

I think the public is getting hit with somewhat of a word game. The yearly deficit is one topic, and the overall national debt is another topic. Of course they are directly related. The Congress discusses decreasing the yearly deficit but does not often mention that the overall national debt will still get larger every year. I take that as being one step forward and two steps back and an overall sum of one step back. Yes, we DO have a revenue problem in addition to a large spending problem. When you do not pay your bills for years, the debt just gets bigger. Then you either have to find new revenue, or you go broke. That is my summary of this entire situation. We need leaders and not just talkers - on both sides of the aisle.

6) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

Before Democrats gained control we had an annual deficit, adjusted for inflation, of $174 billion and total federal spending was $2,962 billion. After gaining the balance of power the Democrats raised federal spending to $3,696 and the annual deficit to $1,484 billion in just 2 years.

7) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

The Advocate opinion writers must not know that the fiscal cliff deal adds almost $4 trillion to the national debt, according to the CBO. Taxes were not only raised on “the rich” but on everyone paying payroll taxes. Obama got just about everything he wanted in the deal because the Democrats hold the balance of power in Washington, as they have since January, 2007. Better democrats gained control we had an annual deficit, adjusted for inflation, of $174 billion and total federal spending was $2,962 billion. After gaining the balance of power the Democrats raised federal spending to $3,696 in just 2 years. The Democrats’ excuse is that they had to raise spending in response to the recession. The recession ended in June, 2009 and Democrats never reduced spending to pre-recession levels.

8) Comment by [e-mail] - 04/01/2013

This "compromise" is just another nail in the coffin; the meaning of the word up in DC means that Republicans cave and give more power, money to spend freely on democrat enriching programs, and all the high ground to Democrats. I think Whatnow might have a point; it's past time for the peasants to grab their pitchforks, stakes, and torches and march on the castle.

9) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

Time to bulldoze Washington into the ocean and start over. They've all gone berserk and corrupt.

10) Comment by tradewinns - 03/01/2013

why and how does anyone call that a compromise? we got a ton of tax increase (democrats are happy) and no spending reductions (the republican side). should the republicans be happy the democrats got slightly less than they wanted while the republicans got nothing? the old time republicans (no difference in them and democrats) started left of center line and ran quickly to the left end. the citizens of the U.S. must have a balance budget amendment. if the people want to fully fund every program with their money, that's democracy in action. to hide the full cost of government from the citizens by using the country's "credit card" and paying the minumum payment is lying to the citizens. pay the full cost of government every year!

11) Comment by Attila - 03/01/2013

Too bad that we got $41 in tax increases and NO spending reductions. This cannot be allowed to continue.