OMB!! Can Sylvia Mathews Burwell save the budget?

The former Gates Foundation chief may be the best hope for a White House-congressional deal in 2013.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller and OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Sen. Jay Rockefeller and OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell Photo: SenRockefeller

Former Seattle resident and Gates Foundation executive Sylvia Mathews Burwell will take center stage Wednesday in Washington, D.C. when, as the newly appointed director of the Office of Management and Budget, she will defend President Barack Obama's formal budget submission to Congress.

The budget is a couple months late but, better late than never, it will provide a framework for bipartisan negotiations which will follow.  It had been preceded by House- and Senate-passed proposals with differing tax/spending emphases.

Burwell's appointment should be seen as good news. She served as deputy director of OMB in the Clinton White House and worked closely with Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin and White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles (later co-chair of the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission) to achieve a balanced federal budget in the first year of President Clinton's second term.
Leaks last week indicated that the Obama proposal would cut $130 billion over 10 years in Social Security spending while also proposing much larger tax increases. The House Republican budget, by contrast, projects no net tax increases but continues to emphasize entitlement programs and other spending cuts. 

Any genuine compromise will come through their mutual embrace of "tax reforms," eliminating present loopholes and subsidies for favored groups and sectors. A favorable portent on that front came on Monday when a joint Wall Street Journal essay by Senate Finance Chair and Democrat Max Baucus and House Ways and Means Chair and Republican Dave Camp revealed their mutual effort to find common ground on proposals which would seriously address longterm deficits while also stimulating general economic growth.

Both liberal and conservative economists will attest that a tax code with lower rates, fewer deductions and fewer brackets — as in Sen. Bill Bradley's 1986 tax-reform package — would stimulate growth, remove imbalance and unfairness in the tax code, and generate tax revenues reducing deficits and debt.

The difficulty lies, of course, in overcoming interest-group opposition to removal of "tax expenditures" (i.e., loopholes and subsidies) which specifically benefit them. (The same exercise is taking place in Olympia where generalized pledges of tax reform, by both Democratic governors and GOP legislators, keep being blunted by special-favor recipients ranging from Boeing and Microsoft to obscure companies whose lobbyists got breaks enacted under the general radar. Washington state and local tax breaks amount to three times the size of the state's biennial budget).

At national level, the time may finally be right for the kind of budget compromises both Obama and Republicans have resisted over the past four years. Opinion surveys indicate voters are fed up both with Obama and congressional leaders in the wake of the recent fiscal cliff and sequestration budget charades. The most recent economic data show a disturbing increase in long-term unemployment — and in the numbers of Americans who have just plain given up looking for work. Since the 2008 financial crisis and economic downturn, in particular, huge numbers of workers have chosen to live off Social Security disablility payments. Labor-force participation overall is at the lowest level since 1979.

Small-business hiring plans are disappointing, as many employers are resisting adding workers which would expose them to mandatory Obamacare costs next year. There clearly are not enough promising data to sustain much longer the run up of the Dow Jones average over the past year. As the average recedes, families' net worth will recede.

Over the next several weeks both White House and Congress will be engaging in sometimes polarizing claims about the others' budget proposals. Here are some things to watch as the debate proceeds:

1. Which proposals would put debt on a downward path relative to the size of the economy? Such debt presently amounts to 73 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is twice the size of the historical average. On the present budget path, debt will be 79 percent of GDP in 10 years

2. Which proposals will contain Medicare, Medicaid and other government health spending? These are the fastest growing parts of the federal budget, driven in particular by the aging of the population and by inflation well over the general inflation rate.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


Posted Wed, Apr 10, 12:04 p.m. Inappropriate

This column is exactly why I refuse to donate to crosscut.
Right Wing apologies, masking as centrism, written by a former lobbyist for big business.

There is a reason why virtually every major corporation and business group employs former staffers of Max Baucus to make sure that the upcoming "tax reform" changes nothing important.


Posted Wed, Apr 10, 2:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Ries, those rascals at Crosscut are pimping for the Right Wing, no question about it. Send your money to the Washington Post. They're pure.


Posted Wed, Apr 10, 5:16 p.m. Inappropriate

I send my money to Lucky Peach and Hakim Bey, thank you very much. I think Katherine Graham already makes enough money selling textbooks, she doesnt need any of mine.


Posted Wed, Apr 10, 5:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Katherine Graham has been dead for at least ten years.


Posted Thu, Apr 11, 9:02 a.m. Inappropriate

See- I was right- she DOESNT need my money.


Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »