Caroline Baum: U.S. a debt-a-holic

11/18/2012 12:00 AM

11/16/2012 4:52 PM

Earlier this year, a group of longtime deficit hawks came together to try to accomplish what has eluded their predecessors for so long. Unveiled at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on July 17, the group had a new name (the Campaign to Fix the Debt), some old faces (Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson, Alice Rivlin), and all of the familiar platitudes associated with previous efforts to put the federal budget on a sustainable path: a “nonpartisan coalition” working to replace “temporary patches” with a “comprehensive solution” that will “grow the economy” and “protect the most vulnerable.”

Pretty soon, chief executive officers of major U.S. companies were signing on: folks like Dave Cote of Honeywell, Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical and Duncan Niederauer of NYSE Euronext. By the end of October, the number of business leaders had grown to 100. The campaign had a steering committee, a citizens’ petition, a budget of $40 million and a set of core principles, starting with the recognition that “our growing debt is a serious threat to the economic well-being and security of the United States.”

It sounds a lot like a 12-step program for Debtors Anonymous, minus the Higher Power stuff.

I don’t mean to belittle the campaign’s noble intentions. Faced with automatic tax increases and spending cuts on Jan. 1, President Obama and Congress need all the support, and cover, they can get to negotiate a short-term fix with enough enforcement mechanisms to produce a long-term solution. I’m just wondering why this time is different.

For example, Democrats and Republicans already agree on, or pay lip service to, a “core principle” of tax reform: something that simplifies the tax code and raises revenue by broadening the base and eliminating loopholes that exceed $1 trillion annually. So why are they still talking about it this close to the fiscal cliff?

Answer: Because agreeing on principles isn’t the same as closing a deal. To the 100 CEOs who insist “everything is on the table,” where is one – just one – who says “here, take this off my plate”?

I participated in two conference calls sponsored by the Campaign to Fix the Debt. On the Oct. 25 call, I asked Honeywell’s Cote if the CEOs would sign a pledge to forgo all lobbying that benefited their particular company and industry.

“We all signed a pledge not to sign any pledges,” Cote said, to background laughter.

On the Nov. 8 call, I asked a similar question. After commending the CEOs for their effort, I wanted to know what exactly they proposed to do.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and a leader of the campaign, said she was “encouraged by the level of outreach” on the part of business leaders, who are willing “to sacrifice for the good of the country.”

I still wasn’t hearing much about the “do” part. To what extent are CEOs, who are accountable to their shareholders and focused on their stock price, willing to “put national interest ahead of special interests,” one of the key bullet points in the citizen’s petition?

For that matter, how many of the ordinary Americans signing on to the Fix the Debt initiative want to sacrifice their mortgage-interest deduction or exemption for employer-provided health care benefits? There is a constituency for every loophole. More than half the lobbying in this country is related to the tax code.

Based on past efforts, and limited success, in attacking deductions and exemptions, the best we can probably hope for is something Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposed: a cap on itemized deductions for high-income earners. If that’s what reform looks like, the tax code will continue to encourage inefficient behavior to the detriment of the economy.

Editor's Choice Videos

Join the Discussion

The Wichita Eagle is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service