With the nation headed toward the dreaded “fiscal cliff,” it appears there is now some faint hope we can steer out of harm’s way.
Thank goodness.
Last month we criticized Congress for punting on addressing serious issues — notably the looming trouble associated with the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and more than $100 billion in mandatory cuts to discretionary and defense programs — until after the Nov. 6 elections.
We said then that the “lame duck” session provided an opportunity for even a divided Congress to reach a “grand bargain” that would deal with the fiscal cliff and the heavy burden of federal budget deficits.
So it is heartening to see that a handful of senators — notably Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet and Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander — are busy making plans to do exactly that after Election Day.
Perhaps more importantly, they seem to have the backing of both Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
The framework of their deal, as outlined in a story in The New York Times last Tuesday, would be agreement on a deficit reduction target in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over the next 1o years.
The target would be reached via a combination of increased tax revenues, entitlement reforms and spending cuts.
Obviously the parameters will vary depending on who wins the presidency and the outcome of Senate and House elections. But the goal is one that should be commended.
The effort also should be lauded for its attempt to steer us from the fiscal cliff in a fashion that wouldn’t let Congress shirk its responsibilities.
Instead, the deal being discussed by Bennet and Alexander would insist that, should Congress not approve a plan within a specified time (somewhere between six and 12 months), then something along the lines of the Bowles-Simpson plan would kick in.
That plan, offered by former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, achieved $4 trillion in deficit reduction via a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.
We have long supported the idea, and think it serves as a suitable roadmap for a bipartisan compromise.
The benefit of moving quickly on a deal after the election, in our view, is that it would send a message to financial markets rather than the markets having to send a message to Washington.
“We should solve this not just because we need to for our kids’ and for this economy, but so we can reassert … leadership in the world,” Bennet said Thursday. “It’s a golden opportunity for us to come together.”
Beyond the outcome of the presidential race, the other wild card is the House.
We continue to believe that the election will deliver to that body the message that voters are fed up with partisan gridlock.
With the nation still limping its way toward economic recovery, we are faced with an easy choice: Agree on plans soon in which all sides must give a little; or be forced to swallow much more onerous plans down the road.
