The Post asked lawmakers, economists and political analysts about the prospects that the president and congressional Republicans would reach a serious budget deal this year. Below are responses from Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Mark Warner, Maya MacGuineas, William G. Gale, Diane Lim Rogers, Alice M. Rivlin, Karl Rove, Geoff Garin, and Douglas E. Schoen.
SENS. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-Ga.) and MARK WARNER (D-Va.)
We have confidence that there ultimately will be a budget agreement to fund the current operations of government. Of greater concern is whether those of us who serve in Washington will find common ground on a longer-range plan to rein in deficits and debt.
Since this economic downturn began, families across America have had to make tough choices to make ends meet. It is time for Washington to do the same. Unfortunately, the current debate is centered on domestic discretionary spending, so even drastic cuts to some programs will not address our overall debt crisis.
That's why we have been working together since last summer to forge a bipartisan coalition in the Senate that's committed to act this year to address our deficits and debt. We now are working to turn the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform into legislation.
The simple fact is, every dollar spent servicing our nation's staggering $14 trillion debt is a dollar that cannot be channeled into creating jobs, expanding our economy or other priorities.
The deficit commission's report represents a courageous first step in tackling our national debt and reforming our tax code in ways that makes our nation competitive for the 21st century. It would lower tax rates and simplify a system in need of an overhaul. It puts everything on the table, including entitlement spending and defense. The commission laid out a plan to strengthen and protect Social Security for the next 75 years, and that needs to be part of this discussion as well.
Every day that we put off these difficult decisions, more than $4 billion is added to the national debt. While there are plenty of recommendations in the commission's plan that we would not have chosen, one thing is clear to both of us: Our nation will be far better off with a comprehensive deficit reduction plan than without one.
President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Here's how it could happen: After a lot of harrumphing, the two parties agree that the fiscal situation has to be fixed and what should be achieved as a prerequisite for increasing the debt ceiling (though not necessarily how to do it). Let's say they agree that until a plan is passed to reduce the debt to 60 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade and stabilize it thereafter, the debt ceiling is increased only in three-month increments. So, no more punts.
Republicans try their hand at an all-spending-cuts plan. They eliminate foreign aid, farm subsidies and earmarks; cut welfare and funding for highways, education and the workforce; fix Social Security (through spending cuts only); and repeal the 2010 health-care law. And they still are not there. So they cut defense, cut domestic discretionary further and . . . lo and behold, they are still short trillions.
The Democrats' plan lets the tax cuts for the well-off expire, adds a millionaire surtax and lifts the cap on Social Security payroll taxes. They cut earmarks, too. And the deficit not only rages on, it continues to grow forever, since they didn't fix the problem area: entitlements.
Finally, it is made obvious to them and the country that extreme approaches to deficit reduction just won't work. And so they (gasp) compromise. I don't know that the chances are good, necessarily, but I am going to hold out hope that it is possible.
WILLIAM G. GALE
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
Prospects for a major budget deal in 2011 are small. There is plenty of blame to spread around - including on the administration and congressional Democrats.
But one reason to highlight is the "no new taxes" pledge, which has been signed by almost every congressional Republican - 235 out of 241 in the House and 41 out of 47 in the Senate - including the House speaker, the Senate minority leader and the leading Republicans on the two budget committees. This, despite the fact that Republicans have repeatedly voted for increases in spending throughout the past decade, including the biggest deficit-financed entitlement in the past 45 years, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Virtually every serious student of the budget understands that a major deal will require both tax increases and spending cuts. Budget discipline works only when it is imposed on both sides of the ledger. In the 1983 Social Security reforms and the 1990 and 1993 budget deals, Congress did just that, slashing spending and raising taxes.
In 1981 and 2001, by contrast, massive tax cuts did not lead to reduced spending, despite the hopes of those who espouse the "starve the beast" theory of fiscal reform. Instead, the tax cuts were followed by big increases in spending, boosting the deficit from both sides. And the result is clear: If some politicians refuse to ask their constituents to contribute to solving the fiscal problem through higher taxes, other politicians will see no reason to ask their constituents endure lower benefits.
The only way out in the current Congress is for the Republican members to violate their no-new-taxes pledge en masse.
DIANE LIM ROGERS
Chief economist at the Concord Coalition and blogger at EconomistMom.com
If a "serious" budget deal means making the tough choices required to take us off the unsustainable course the federal budget is on, the chances for such a deal this year are basically nil. No one in Washington is into the mutual-sacrifice type of compromise needed to reduce the budget deficit. They've been too busy blaming each other for our fiscal mess and seem to believe that moving first on the solution is like admitting guilt - when the truth is that they're all guilty, and we Americans are all guilty, of perpetuating fiscally irresponsible policies.
The Obama administration points to the tax cuts passed in the lame-duck session as evidence of its ability to lead on bipartisan compromise. But compromise is pretty easy when everyone gets everything they want rather than everyone having to give up something they want.
A truly serious bipartisan budget deal would require a willingness on the part of Democrats to consider (progressive) cuts to Social Security and Medicare and on the part of Republicans to accept (economically efficient) increases in tax revenue. As suggested by the president's own fiscal commission, tax reform that raises revenue progressively but efficiently by broadening the tax base seems a very promising area for bipartisan compromise. Yet Obama "leads" by proposing nearly the opposite in his budget - that the bulk of the inefficient, unfair and hugely revenue-losing then-Bush, now-Obama tax cuts be permanently extended even beyond their two-year "compromise."
ALICE M. RIVLIN
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; member of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; co-chair of the Bipartisan Debt Reduction Task Force
Here is an optimistic scenario that could result in a serious long-run budget agreement this year: First, a bipartisan group of senators crafts a long-run budget plan that slows the future growth of Medicare and Medicaid, puts Social Security on sound fiscal basis, simplifies the tax code to raise more revenue from broader base with lower rates, and caps discretionary spending (defense and domestic). This step doesn't take long, because the bipartisan group is already working and has the Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin plans to build on. Next, the president and the House leadership join the negotiations. Political perceptions begin to shift. After the sharp world-market reaction to the brief battle over the debt-ceiling increase, all participants are scared of not acting. Fear of taking the first step to slow entitlement growth or raise additional revenue is replaced by fear of being blamed for blowing up the deal and throwing the economy into a new tailspin. The deal no one thought possible is signed in the Rose Garden in the October sunshine, markets react positively, business steps up hiring and economic growth accelerates.
White House deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to George W. Bush; Wall Street Journal columnist; Fox News contributor
There will be a budget deal, but only after President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have milked the crisis for every cheap political point they can. It appears they would be content to shut down the federal government just so they can blame the GOP.
After failing last year when they had big majorities in Congress to pass a budget for the current fiscal year, neither the administration nor congressional Democrats can rouse themselves to do the serious business of the country. Imagine the howls if a Republican president with big majorities in each chamber had let the fiscal year start and nearly five months go by without finalizing the appropriations bills necessary to fund the government.
If this is not incompetence, then it is at least evidence of a serious lack of leadership by Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Obama promises a "serious conversation" on entitlements at some undefined future time, but posturing by his aides and Democrats on Capitol Hill reveals that the principal (if not sole) goal of the Obama White House now is to get reelected.
A budget deal will come only when Obama believes it is in his political interest. Until then, the candidate who promised post-partisanship in the White House will be a hyper-partisan president.
Democratic pollster and strategist; president of Hart Research Associates
The best hope for a bipartisan budget solution is in the Senate, but the Senate cannot produce a meaningful outcome unless House Republicans are part of the conversation and committed to the outcome from the start. And I doubt any experts on negotiation would encourage President Obama or congressional Democrats to reach one compromise in the Senate only to have that become the starting point for a new negotiation with House Republicans.
The greatest obstacle to a grand deal on the budget is that the House Republican majority believes its mandate is to gut government rather than resolve the deficit and debt. President Obama has shown himself to be a willing and able negotiator, but how do you negotiate when tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product is at a 60-year low, income inequality is at a historic high - and still the other party insists on maintaining tax cuts for those at the top? What deal is to be had with a party that finds it acceptable to slash funds for scientific research, clean energy and Head Start but will not end subsidies for the oil and gas industries or tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas? Republican wrongheadedness on revenue explains why Rep. Paul Ryan's "road map" doesn't start to achieve a balanced budget until 2063 - 28 years after the Bowles-Simpson plan would.
If House Republicans say they are open to compromise on these matters, maybe there is hope. More likely, though, is that it will take another election for voters to sort out which approach they prefer to fixing the budget.
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
Democratic pollster and author
I don't believe there will be a budget compromise anytime soon, even though there are some straightforward ways in which this could be achieved.
The most straightforward is for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to submit the bipartisan balanced-budget plan crafted by the president's deficit commission. The committee, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, drafted a very good starting point - a plan that would produce $3.7 trillion in savings over 10 years, with 80 percent of the savings coming from spending cuts and 20 percent coming from revenue increases to reduce the budget deficit and the national debt. Eleven of the panel's 18 members (from senators as far right as Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn and as left as North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad) voted to send it to Congress.
It is not a good sign that this step hasn't been taken, nor that the president hasn't called for a balanced-budget summit the way Bill Clinton sought meetings with Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Republican congressional leaders in the mid-1990s. Those discussions ultimately led to the balanced-budget agreement and changed the course of America's fiscal history.
About the only good news is that six senators, Democratic and Republican, have been meeting quietly to try to fashion a balanced-budget plan on their own. But the absence of high-level support from the administration or the congressional leadership of either party is, at the least, a bad omen.