The most striking thing about the continuing federal budget stalemate (calling it a “debate” would be giving it far too much credit) is that few seem to be willing to accept or even state out loud what should be obvious: Eliminating the deficit will impose some pain on most Americans.
At least in the short term, reducing the deficit will eliminate or reduce popular services provided by the government and require that many or most people pay more in taxes. Along the way it will decrease economic growth and jobs compared to what they otherwise would be.
Unless someone invents a way to increase revenues without anyone paying more or to cut spending without any government services being affected, reducing the deficit absolutely is going to hurt individuals, industries and regions. But the budget fight in Washington won’t get any better anytime soon until this becomes understood and, far more important, accepted.
I’m not sure who is more at fault for what has become a chronic disconnect between the actual effect of what needs to be done to deal with the deficit and what’s being said the effect will be.
Members of Congress clearly bear a good deal of the responsibility for not talking about the material effect their preferred spending cuts and revenue increases will have on their constituents. Typical Members and their challengers routinely take the position that someone else’s taxes should go up or spending important to some other industry, Congressional district, state, department or demographic group should bear the burden. In other words, they say it shouldn’t hurt a bit.
Officials also typically talk enthusiastically about deficit reduction alternatives that allegedly will painlessly fix the budget. Eliminating earmarks, giving the president a line item veto, passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and implementing the constantly-suggested-but-never-successful budget process “reform” are always touted as magic elixirs that will cure what ails us without any broken bones, permanent scars or side effects.
This isn’t really surprising: What elected official or candidate for office wants to tell her or his constituents that what they want done on the budget means they’ll have to do with less or pay more? It’s even less likely someone will say that both — get less and pay more — will be needed even when that’s the reality of the situation.
But anyone who says that Congress and the White House are completely to blame for the continuing disconnect on the budget isn’t reading the tea leaves or, in this case, the polls correctly.
Poll after poll on the budget says that the typical American wants the deficit reduced with spending cuts. The response is almost always overwhelming and the source of a few day’s headlines.
But that supposedly definitive result and those headlines change quickly when those same voters in those same polls are asked to specify the spending they want reduced.
That’s when cuts to foreign aid usually become the only ones preferred by a majority. Not only is support for cutting every other federal activity low, but the results typically show that Americans really want more rather than less of almost everything else the government is doing.
From left, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., David Goldman, the father of a child who was abducted to Brazil by the mother, and Arvind Chawdra, a father whose two children were abducted to India by their mother, attend a news conference in the Rayburn House Office Building on international child abduction.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.