If not 'sequester,' then what? Five ideas from left and right.

Few in Washington believe that "the sequester,” $85 billion in automatic spending cuts set to hit the federal budget as of March 1, is a good idea. But what's the alternative? Here are five proposals, from the right, the center, and the left, to replace the sequester. Which do you like?

3. Senate Democrats: ‘Cut some spending, raise some taxes’

Paul Sakuma/AP/File
To many Democrats, this (Warren Buffet) is the face of fiscal sanity.

In the Senate, majority Democrats propose offsetting the cost of the sequester by raising a dollar in new revenues for every dollar in spending cuts. It’s a 50-50 split, in which the major pillars are higher taxes for America's wealthy and less government spending on farm subsidies and national defense.

The plan, fashioned in February by new Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D) of Washington, includes several long-loved Democratic priorities.

It begins with the so-called Buffett rule, named after gajillionaire Warren Buffett, who has famously noted that his secretary’s tax rate is higher than his own because of special tax treatment for people like himself who reap income from investments (through capital gains and dividends). Under the Buffett rule, households making more than $2 million a year (after charitable deductions) would pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes. (The rule begins to phase in at $1 million in annual income.)

Over 10 years, the Buffett rule would raise the lion’s share of the $55 billion in new tax revenue Democrats seek. The rest would come from ending 1) a tax preference for oil produced from oil sands ($2 billion) and 2) a tax deduction for companies that outsource US jobs.

The Democrats’ plan would also cut defense spending by about $27.5 billion over 10 years. Direct payments to farmers, a frequent target of critics in both parties, would shrink by a similar amount during that same period.

Chiefly, the Senate Democrats’ proposal spreads this year’s sequester pain over the next decade – something Republicans generally are loath to do because they fear future Congresses will simply reverse the promised spending restraint. (But wait! Isn’t that exactly what the House voted to do? Yes, indeed. The difference is that the GOP plan offered more cuts in future years than it offset this year.) Moreover, Republicans balk at new tax revenues. They are also determined to save the Pentagon from further cuts, even as Democrats zero in on the defense budget as a target for cuts to come.

The Senate has not yet voted on the Democratic plan to replace the sequester, but is expected to do so by March 1 or soon after.

(Democrats over in the House, meanwhile, have put forward a plan similar to that of their Senate colleagues. But instead of making cuts to the Pentagon, they recommend ending even more tax benefits for the oil and gas industry.) 

3 of 5

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.