6 ways President Obama and Congress can avoid the 'fiscal cliff'

Republican congressional leaders and President Obama sharply disagree over how to deal with the impending “fiscal cliff.” But a successful plan shouldn’t be that hard to put in place. Here are six ways Washington can avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

6. Eliminate the statute that requires Congress to approve debt-ceiling increases

To avoid another dangerous debt-ceiling showdown, lawmakers need to repeal the statute that requires Congress to approve increases in the debt ceiling. They should replace it with a provision that requires automatic across-the-board spending cuts whenever spending exceeds the historical average of about 20 percent of GDP. That figure should also be adjusted by the Congressional Budget Office for demographic and economic trends that no one can control and for allowable increases in health-care spending.

This ensures that spending is kept under control, but recognizes that an aging population is going to necessitate that spending on seniors rise somewhat if we are to prevent the kind of damaging cuts to other programs that undermine economic growth and societal well-being.

The public is willing to pay higher taxes but only if they are assured that these are needed to reduce the deficit, not pay for a much bigger government. And placing limits on spending is a top GOP priority.

Eliminating the debt-ceiling rule is critical to allowing both parties to move forward without worrying about a new crisis every time the current ceiling expires. Leaving this vehicle in place just guarantees more car wrecks down the road. The current debt statute is an anachronism. Its primary function is not to rein in spending – since this is spending that Congress has already authorized – but rather to hold the economy hostage to one party’s demands.

Whatever the fiscal cliff’s economic consequences, they are not nearly as bad as a default on our debt.

Isabel Sawhill co-directs the Budgeting for National Priorities project at the Brookings Institution in Washington. She served as an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1995 during the Clinton administration.

6 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.