The intense debate over raising the country’s debt ceiling resulted in a deal that has left members of both parties disappointed, most notably the Democratic Party. It is evident from the battle it took to reach the decision that finding solutions to our problems has been made more difficult because the topics of our debates are obfuscated by extreme rhetoric. Worse, Congress has forgotten the effectiveness of true deliberation and compromise in all the heat.
Both sides brought fundamentally different arguments to the table, namely the disagreement on taxes; Democrats wanted to raise them for the nation’s most well-off citizens, while Republicans didn’t.
This action was simply irresponsible because the debt issue is too serious. A United States default would have been unprecedented, as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned. Though each party drew a hard line on negotiations, members of Congress must be responsible and realistic: the country was going to default on its debts.
Jonathan Koppell, director of the University’s School of Public Affairs, emphasized that the issue of raising the national debt limit was not new, but was rather a consequence of previous decisions.
“Congress’ spending and tax-cutting in the past put us into this (debt-ceiling) situation,” he said, which is a discussion Congress has had numerous times in the past. According to CNN, the federal debt limit has been raised 74 times since March of 1962, essentially making it a routine matter.
“That the decision to raise the ceiling was now framed as unavoidable was maddening to some people,” Koppell said, referring to Tea Party Republicans.
The group was inflexible in its stipulation that there be no new revenue increases in the deal, and they eventually got their way. Koppell also said, “It was an unusual situation that typically doesn’t come up in the legislative process. One side of the conflict (the Democrats) thought it was absolutely necessary to act, while some of the other side (the Tea Party Republicans) fundamentally disagreed and were willing to let the default happen. This creates a fundamental asymmetry in the negotiations and reveals just how deep the differences in perspective were.”
In other words, the two parties did not see eye to eye on what they were arguing about.
Koppell said the media focused more on the process of the decision, which was “not our finest hour,” though a majority was formed in the end. “Ultimately, a piece of legislation was created,” he said.
It was created at great political expense.
We will not solve our financial problems by being so divided in ideology. Both parties need to sit down, agree on what is ballooning our national debt and work out a solution together. In not being open to reciprocating Democrats’ concessions, Tea Party members acted in a way that is unbecoming of politicians, experts in the nuances of policy and masters of communication. Despite Republicans’ distaste for revenue increases, they must be embraced so the country can resolve its out-of-control debt.
Compromise should be seen as the fruit of a good debate. The goal of politics ? designing solutions that maintain the best interests of the country ? must never be overlooked, no matter how contentious the issue. This requires both sides of the aisle to share a clear understanding of what is happening. National unity and our global financial reputation depend on it.
Reach the columnist at jlgunthe@asu.edu.