Budget

As fiscal cliff nears, is no news good news?

U.S. Capitol

Insiders say the spotlight could make compromise harder. "I think the fact that you're not hearing any details is good," one senator said.

Debate over measures to avert the so-called fiscal cliff is heating up in Washington, where internal squabbles and fierce politicking threaten an eleventh-hour agreement. Much of the discussions are happening behind closed doors, and with little time left, it is not necessarily clear where negotiations stand -- much less what the outcome could be.

On Nov. 28, top lawmakers as well as President Barack Obama spoke publicly about the ongoing meetings on an agreement that would halt the significant cuts to government programs set to hit beginning Jan. 2, including sequestration and the expiration of tax cuts.

While Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reassured the public that a budget deal would be reached, elsewhere in Washington other insiders offered a glimpse of the political complexities playing out behind the curtain.

"I think the fact that you're not hearing any details is good,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said during a Fox News appearance. “You don’t hear people trying to manipulate the negotiations that are ongoing through the press or the media. So look, we’re going to solve this problem one way or the other.”

Despite Coburn’s claim, political lobbying is playing a critical role as legislators try to work out a deal, according to former lawmakers speaking Nov. 28 at a Bipartisan Policy Center event in Washington.

“There are a lot of folks who would like this agreement to happen in a climate where there is no politics. It will never happen ... because politics is the cement that holds the system together, not what divides it,” said John Sununu, former White House chief of staff and former New Hampshire governor.

The BPC event compared today’s fiscal situation to a similarly heated budgetary environment in 1990, and panelists speaking at the event drew a number of historical parallels. The panelists also highlighted key differences that are driving today’s contentious negotiations.

"We have a divided government, and we had it then. In 1990 it was easier ... we had a debt ratio and significant deficit, but the long term looked possible if we could solve the short-term problems. Also, in 1990 the parties were competitive, but they weren’t polarized like they are today," said William Frenzel, former Minnesota representative. "The most important difference, in my judgment, is that there was less outside pressure on the negotiators from radio and TV extremists, lobbyists, core constituencies, users of social media, etc. Mostly, the negotiators labored in blissful anonymity."

Today’s 24-hour news cycle is not necessarily beneficial to the process, former New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici pointed out. In fact, it could actually be detrimental, dulling the true threat the U.S. faces.

“I don’t think the players get it. I think they are so besieged by information ... that they don’t think there’s a chance that anything bad can happen. I think there’s a very real chance that something very bad could happen this time,” Domenici said.

Still, not everyone believes that the Jan. 2 deadline could make or break the U.S., or the world economic system, as some -- including Domenici -- have suggested. But without a doubt, the cuts eventually would have substantial negative impact across the government if they are not reversed.

“Every day that goes by we're getting closer, [but] this is not like a government shutdown, it's not really like a cliff,” Todd Harrison, analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Nov. 27. “It's going to be weeks if not months before we see actual implementation ... that will give Congress time to come back and turn it off.”

Harrison spoke at a briefing in Washington outlining the findings of a CSBA “war game” that examined how a group of more than 70 unnamed Defense Department insiders, broken into smaller teams, would implement cuts that are likely to be inevitable, regardless of the fiscal cliff outcome. The exercise, conducted last summer, revealed that most would significantly cut down on active duty forces while investing in defenses and areas such as cyber. It also showed the importance of “picking winners” -- priorities for spending as DOD prepares to institute spending reductions throughout the military.

Back on Capitol Hill, the focus was on the broader government and getting the job done, and the former legislators offered some advice for the budget negotiators.

“Ignore the outsiders ... they’re always going to be mad at you, just get the job done,” Frenzel said. “If you turn down a responsible deal you’ll get a worse one. No deal is perfect ... any kind of a good deal is going to be disliked by everybody.”

That is an idea that has become evident in recent years of increasingly polarized and provocative politics -- and according to Domenici, it has done the U.S. no favors in getting to the current situation.

“It seems like we’ve gotten to this point in history where everybody goes home, everybody splits and there are very few real friends,” Domenici said. “When I was here sponsorship and work on bills can be traced through friendships [across the aisles] … that’s needed more than ever now. But I don’t know if we can build that. It has to come back some way.”

The 2014 Federal 100

Get to know the 100 women and men honored this year for going above and beyond in federal IT.

Reader comments

Mon, Dec 3, 2012

We the public need to just back out of this and let the legislators do their jobs. Constant "egging on" by the press is the real problem. Let the partisanship continue. It's human nature and is fine in our system of govt. It's the compromise and the vote that count. No good deals can be struck while politicians try to "one up" the opposition in front of the camera. Deprive the politicians of the camera and watch the problem be solved. Imagine cameras pointed at jurors while they are deliberating a criminal case. Preposterous you say? That's what we're seeing now.

Thu, Nov 29, 2012

'cut down on active duty forces '- the DOD version of 'the first thing we do is close the Wahington Monument'. DoD could easily handle major cuts merely by eliminating some of the duplication between commands and services, common-service wherever possible, and outsourcing some functions to the civilian-side agencies that do the same things. What we need is another act like in 47-49, starting with a blank sheet of paper, and having ONE DoD, not a loose confederation of 5 seperate services each thinking they know best.

Thu, Nov 29, 2012 Chuck Viator Washington Metro Area

I beleive that there exists alot of naive people or there is a lot of "head-in-the -sand" syndrome going on. The book below by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, authors of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," explain how obstructionism impacts the American political process. And yes the "24 hour news cycle" is a part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is an interesting read - my take is that until we understand what is truely happening we cannot change it.

Thu, Nov 29, 2012 Paul

Agree with Domenici. Too many people in the country have taken on a feeling of entitlement where they should get everything they want. The left and the right have both become obsitinant extremists and it gets us no where. If things do go T@# up, it'll be our fault as consituents and voters for being unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. We've been living a charmed life on borrowed money and it's time to pay up.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above