Budget uncertainty prolonged; talks in need of a fresh approach

In his Washington Post editorial, "In Senate's debate, talk isn't cheap", columnist Dana Milbank takes congress to task for their inept handling of the 2011 budget. He starts this off by intimating that the Senate has failed...again, calling the debate and subsequent vote a "farce", furthermore expressing contempt for certain members of Congress with accounts of their nonproductive rhetoric interwoven throughout his commentary. Milbank addresses the opposing points of view with no discernible partisanship--his scorn seemingly encompasses both sides of the aisle.

The purpose of the article goes beyond an expression of disdain towards Congress, professing a solution that falls somewhere in the middle of the $6.5 billion to $61 billion range of cuts established by the two rejected proposals. I'm inclined to agree; within the $2.65 trillion budget, it seems plausible that enough inefficient spending can be reduced to satiate Congressional Republicans while minimizing adverse effects on the economy and important government agencies. Milbank suggests that Congress' return to the drawing board could yield benefits, "both sides can now sit down and negotiate a compromise that trims 2011 spending without choking off economic recovery." After criticizing the Republican proposal for eliminating too many jobs, and the Democratic proposal for cutting less than one percent of discretionary spending, the article posits that a debt problem will not be mitigated solely through token budget cuts.

While I agree with some of the author's sentiments, there is still a need to elaborate on why certain policy positions are more optimal than others, which would have lent the article a more solid logical coherence. At one point he quotes Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), who alleged that the republican plan would "'jeopardize the economic recovery,'" the author concurring with him, adding, "This is true." But why is this true? Which of the proposed cuts will have these effects? An impartial layperson reading the article may not be able to infer the answers to these questions.

Overall, discussion of Milbank's stance on a solution to the budget debate was present, but not overly concise, taking a back seat to consideration of the actual discourse that took place in the Senate. His assessment of said discourse and his opinion on the issue lacked partisan divisiveness, making the author's arguments accessible to proponents of any political ideology.