Falling off 'fiscal cliff' is 'insane' but likely, say Simpson and Bowles

Debt-fighting duo Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who led Obama's bipartisan debt-reduction panel, speaking at a Monitor breakfast Wednesday warn partisans in Congress against going over the fiscal cliff in a bid to gain a political advantage.

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Senators Alan Simpson (r.) and Erskine Bowles (l.) were guests at the Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters on Wednesday, Nov. 28.

Debt-fighting duo Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, served as co-chairmen of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and are cofounders of the Campaign to Fix the Debt. They were the guests at the Nov. 28 Monitor breakfast. 

Odds of avoiding the “fiscal cliff,” a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts slated to take effect Jan. 1:

Bowles: “We’ve got a real crisis in this fiscal cliff.... It would be insane to breach this fiscal cliff. Yet I think there is only a one-third possibility we will actually get something done before Dec. 31.”

Consequences of failure to steer away from the fiscal cliff:

Bowles: “You will see economic growth slow by as much as 3 to 5 percent ... enough to put us back into recession…. It will throw another 2 million people out of work.”

Claims of partisan advantage:  

Simpson: “The sad part [is] when you have leaders of both parties casting out into the water the bait that says maybe it would help the Democrats if we go off the cliff, and the other side, maybe it would help the Republicans if we go off the cliff.... That’s like betting your country.”

Rating Mr. Obama’s leadership on deficit and debt reduction:

Bowles: “There is no question in my mind that the White House is absolutely serious about getting something done. I wish the discussions had started earlier.”

Need for compromise:

Simpson: “I always love the rigidity of some of those in my party. They are rigid as a fireplace poker but without the occasional warmth.”

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

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.