U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has shown bold leadership by drafting a bill that would avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.” His $4.5 trillion proposal calls for entitlement reform and increased revenues, providing a realistic framework to address the nation’s longterm financial situation.
The two parties have been at an impasse over how to avoid this looming disaster, but this fall’s election — which returned Obama to the White House, kept Democrats in charge of the Senate and Republicans in control of the House — seems to have prompted some movement.
It is obvious that only a combination of increased tax revenues and spending cuts — including some sort of entitlement reform — can reduce the nation’s long-term debt.
Corker and South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham are among GOP lawmakers who have indicated they will no longer honor a no-new-revenues pledge made to anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist. Corker rightly said his oath of office is more important.
That opens the door for serious discussions on revenue increases.
Demons, of course, lurk in the details. That’s where the hard work of hammering out a compromise comes in. Corker and other key Republicans have signaled a willingness to meet the Democrats halfway.
Corker deserves praise for reaching across the aisle and should be rewarded with honest negotiations from the other side.
— Knoxville (Tenn.) News Sentinel
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less