Opinion : Getting to the bottom of the debt ceiling debate

Now that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have shared their views on the debt ceiling "crisis," it's time for you to hear from another person to blame for the mess: Me.

First, a tiny bit of good news:

Finally, after years -- no, decades -- of using smoke and mirrors to define and discuss the federal budget and red ink, Congress has been offered a plan that would offer all Americans a much more honest fiscal policy.

Under the plan proposed by the so-called "Gang Of Six," which is actually a Gang of Five, at times, depending on the whims of some Oklahoma Republican, Congress would no longer be allowed to use smoke and mirrors to claim that the federal deficit is smaller than it actually is.

Under this controversial plan, Congress could smoke, or mirrors, but not both simultaneously.

While some people are calling the need to raise the federal debt ceiling a "crisis," it's not. Members of Congress will agree on some kind of deal to raise the debt ceiling because they have to. Not making a deal will make too many Americans too mad for too long, and the election is just a bit more than 15 months away.

There is a desperate need, of course, for long-term, meaningful budget reform.

Congress, however, is incapable of doing it.

Here's why:

When you or I argue with our spouses about money, we focus on two numbers: The amount of money we have (revenue), and the amount of money we want to spend (expenses).

But when Congress argues with itself about money, its members focus on two numbers: The number of votes the provisions of their budget will get for themselves and their party, and the number of contributions their budget and tax code will get. The amount of money the government receives and spends is secondary to the political impact of the budget on the politicians.

But before we start blaming Congress for its perennial role in our ever-increasing budget deficit, we have to first blame the two other parties.

Me.

And me.

First, we must blame me, the media.

The Media Factor

How much money does the government spend, and on what? Nobody actually knows.

Do you know why nobody knows? Because nobody in the media cares enough about the budget to spend time researching it.

We have time for "exclusive" stories and all kinds of "in-depth" reporting about the moronic choices of celebrity morons, but when is the last time you saw a story that actually gave you a clear idea of how much the government is spending on the EITC, farm subsidies for non-farming entities, or school lunch programs, or anything else on which government spends money?

Remember a while ago when "Rolling Stone" magazine ran a story in which the aides to a general dissed the President? Every news outlet in the world ran that story, and soon that general found himself retired. However, when Rolling Stone ran a story about two 20-something guys who were snorting cocaine while selling low-quality munitions to the U.S. Army and its allies for exorbitant prices, the rest of the media said: Nothing. And when that same rock and roll magazine ran an article about how President Barack Obama had hired for his economic team most of the people who created the mess in the first place, the mainstream media echoed with silence.

How many companies are not paying income tax, and for what reasons? Nobody really knows because those of us in the media don't bother asking the right people the right questions. How much money is the federal government spending on specific projects that may or may not deserve it? Again, nobody knows.

Let me give you three examples that I do know a little about, and they come from right here in Benton County.

Example 1: The students at Vinton-Shellsburg schools will pay $1.90 for their lunch when school starts next month, a 10-cent increase over last year. However, when the U.S. government pays the district for student lunches, it pays more than $2. (I am not at all blaming the schools; this is one case where the federal government is actually helping the schools, although it's a tiny amount compared to all of the expensive things that the state and federal governments demand that schools do without giving them money to pay for it.)

But my question is this: Do you think the government should be paying more for a student lunch than a student does?

Example 2: Benton County participates in a program each year that refunds part of its mental health care costs. The federal program gives most counties $10,000 to $12,000, although it also requires participating counties to pay an accounting firm half of that amount. This is good for counties; for little work, they receive $5-6,000. But it's not a good deal for the federal government. Would you pay an accountant 50 percent of your tax refund?

Which member of Congress started this program? How much money did he or she obtain in campaign contributions from the companies that are now profiting from this program? These are questions that the media -- not even Rolling Stone -- is not asking.

Example 3: Should the federal government help the editor of Vinton Today fill his gas tank with E-85 ethanol? The fuel is about 70 cents per gallon cheaper than the 10 percent ethanol blend, and you, the taxpayer, are making that discount possible.

Of course, these are all very small expenditures compared to the $13 trillion and growing national debt. But we in the media do a horrible job of explaining any of the federal budget in words simple enough that a member of Congress could comprehend. It's no wonder there is not a more rational discussion of the budget; we the people don't understand it enough to discuss it thoroughly.

The Me factor

The other factor that Congress faces in determining the budget mess is what I call the "Me factor." Too many Americans care first of all about how the budget will -- or even could -- affect us.

So when the President gets on TV and says that if the government "defaults" there will be no Social Security checks, people who depend on Social Security will naturally, as he hopes, freak out. Of course, the President was either inexcusably wrong or malevolently lying; Social Security comes from an entirely different fund that would not be affected by the debt ceiling crisis. But the media does not pay enough attention to these details to report them.

If the media began to thoroughly report on the budget, both in terms of taxation, tax loopholes and spending, then the people of the country could speak out on what tax and spending policies they prefer.

That would be good, except for this factor: When Americans are polled about what they want government to spend, and how much they want government to collect in taxes, almost always we say we want government to spend more than it takes in.

That won't work forever.

The only way for America to begin solving the process of fixing our national budgetary crisis is for us to evaluate line by line, expenditure by expenditure, how we got in such a mess.

Then we have to address that mess by saying something other than, "somebody ELSE should have to pay more taxes or receive fewer benefits."

Don't, however, expect that to happen tomorrow. Or ever