Make us your home page

Playing‘good sibling'

Over the past few weeks, the White House has been employing what might be called the "good sibling" strategy. Parents will be familiar with this one: When one child is acting out, the other will press her advantage by becoming ostentatiously polite, studious and well behaved. (Yes, I grew up with siblings. Why do you ask?)

Congress in general — and Republicans in particular — have been acting out for most of the year. There was the near-shutdown in February. The near-default in August. In both cases, the White House inserted itself into the middle of the negotiations, only to look weak and ineffectual when it barely squeaked out eleventh-hour deals that left no one happy. So it has smartly stepped back and let the supercommittee fail on its own.

The contrast was perhaps clearest Monday morning. While much of Washington was pointing fingers over the deficit, President Barack Obama was on television signing a bill to give tax credits to businesses that hire veterans. Voters who tuned in to watch Congress fail at doing its job saw the president very publicly doing his. And like good siblings everywhere, the president was happy to rub it in.

"So my message to every member of Congress is: Keep going," the president said. "Keep working. Keep finding more ways to put partisanship aside and put more Americans back to work."

Keep being, in other words, more like me and less like you.

But a plurality of Americans still disapprove of the president's job performance, and, politics aside, Washington is still producing a mixture of no policy and bad policy.

Confronted with this, members of the Obama administration shrug. There's not much we can do, they say, in a world where congressional Republicans won't agree to a reasonable deal. In most cases, that's true. In this case, it's really not.

The president can't pass policy without congressional cooperation. But in most cases, his veto is sufficient to stop policy that Congress is trying to pass. Which brings us to this simple fact: Our much-discussed deficits don't yet exist. They are the predicted result of policies Congress is expected to pass in the future.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if Congress simply does nothing for the next few years, the fiscal picture will improve by about $7.1 trillion over the next 10 years. About $4 trillion of that is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. An additional $1.2 trillion comes from the trigger that kicks in when the super committee fails. Some Medicare cuts, the expiration of stimulus programs and lower interest payments account for most of the rest. Our projected deficits look so large only because we expect Congress to pursue these policies without paying for them.

Obama could simply say "no" to this: He could veto any nonemergency proposals that increase the federal deficit; that could be Obama's trigger — the thing that happens if Congress refuses to agree to a better deal.

And there is a better deal out there: the report from the Bipartisan Fiscal Commission led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. It's not perfect, of course. But it's better policy than anything that the supercommittee was considering.

The White House never embraced the Bowles-Simpson report. Administration officials worried that the tax numbers don't add up and that the defense cuts are too deep. They didn't like that the proposal caps tax revenue at 21 percent of the GDP or that it raises the eligibility age for Social Security.

They also hoped they could strike a better deal. They couldn't. At this point, it would behoove Obama to press the reset button. To say that he made a mistake. The failure of the congressional negotiations presents an opportunity to undo that mistake. Obama should ask Congress to begin drafting legislation based on Bowles-Simpson, including some fixes (few Republicans will resist the White House's entreaties to lower the defense cuts) and additions (no deficit proposal should be signed if it doesn't extend unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut).

In so doing, Obama would achieve three important things: He'd place the deficit debate back on more reasonable terms. He'd take back the initiative from House Republicans. And he'd give a better policy package a fighting chance at passage.

Then it would be up to Congress to decide whether to keep playing bad sibling or get some praise for themselves, too.

© 2011 Washington Post

Playing‘good sibling' 11/22/11 [Last modified: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:12pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Washington Post.

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours