David Leonhardt, Washington Bureau Chief, Answers Readers’ Questions

Mr. Leonhardt is the author of the e-book, “Here’s the Deal: How Washington Can Solve the Deficit and Spur Growth,” published by The Times and Byliner. Previously, he wrote the paper’s Economic Scene column.

Below are answers to selected questions.

Q.
So presidents make their State of the Union speech then hit the road to sell it. Wouldn’t it be more effective to just stay in D.C. and do the heavy lifting of pushing Congress off of square one?

— HLB Engineering, Mt. Lebanon, PA

A. My colleague Michael Shear writes from Georgia, where is he reporting on President Obama’s trip today:

Recent presidents have made a habit of getting out of Washington to pitch their State of the Union ideas in front of largely friendly crowds who can — the White House hopes — put some political pressure on the lawmakers in Washington. Bill Clinton did it after proposing health reform (with little success). George W. Bush did it, too, after proposing Social Security changes (also with little success).

For Mr. Obama, staying in Washington is exactly what he doesn’t want to do. He and his aides became frustrated in his first year by the endless health care negotiations that made him feel trapped in the weeds of a political process for which Americans don’t have good feelings. The White House staff and the president have concluded that more time outside Washington will actually help the gridlocked process of legislating, by potentially putting political pressure on legislators.

There is a downside, though. The visits have a decidedly campaign-like feel that can lend credence to the accusation that the president is more concerned about political appearances than the business of governing. Mr. Obama has concluded that risk is worth it. But it’s not clear from recent history that the trips have actually helped achieve a president’s goals.

Q.
When the debt was the largest in history as a percent of GDP, in 1946, we had 27 years of mostly deficit spending. The debt in dollars doubled. But we had prosperity. Why don’t we do that today?

— Len Charlap, Princeton, NJ

A. You’re right that a country can have deficits and still pay down its debt, so long as the deficits are small enough and economic growth fast enough. And you’re right that some government spending plays a crucial role in creating economic growth. The most important programs seem to be investments — in education, scientific research, roads, bridges and the like — that the private sector won’t do on its own.

The Internet, the radio, the jet engine, much of biotechnology and the technique for extracting a form of natural gas known as shale gas all owe their beginnings to federal spending. This history is a major theme in “Here’s the Deal.”

But government spending and debt most certainly do not ensure prosperity. Federal debt is already high. The projections showing that annual deficits will fall in the next few years depend on some assumptions that may prove rosy. And as more baby boomers retire and health costs keep rising, projected deficits are projected to rise again, sharply, in coming decades.

As heartening as the recent progress on the deficit may be, the country still faces substantial long-term fiscal problems. If we don’t deal with them, we are likely to have an economy that looks nothing like the prosperous economy after World War II.

Q.
Congressional Republicans recently decided against using the debt limit as a lever to force President Obama to enact spending cuts he wouldn’t otherwise go along with. Is there any indication that Republicans will agree to a longer-term extension once the current limit is reached?

— Eric, Washington, DC

A. It’s hard to know, but it’s possible that the debt-ceiling fights will not continue. In the past, the extension of the debt ceiling tended to be an opportunity for the party that didn’t hold the White House to grandstand about the deficit and debt. (President Obama, somewhat famously, did so in 2006.) In the end, though, the extension tended to pass without any concessions from the president.

In 2011, Congressional Republicans successfully negotiated such concessions from Mr. Obama. In recent months, he made clear that he would not negotiate over the debt ceiling again, citing the economic damage from the uncertainty over the last extension. Republicans have gone along, at least temporarily.

Polls suggest the last fight hurt Republicans more than Democrats, which suggests Republicans may ultimately agree to a long-term extension or simply a series of short-term extensions. On the other hand, they were indeed able to win some spending cuts in 2011, so some in the party continue to see the debt ceiling as a powerful tool.

The most cliched last line in journalism — the kicker, as we say — is: Time will tell. I can’t think of another kicker here.

Q.
Why has the administration given so much focus to gun control in the past few weeks? With a Republican majority in the House and the fact that many Democrats would also vote against advanced gun control measures, would this kind of legislation have a chance of passing the House or the Senate?

— Matthew, Athens, GA

A. Unlike past mass shootings, the killings in Newtown, Conn., shifted the national debate. Public opinion changed modestly, and Democrats who favor more gun control became more willing to push for it.

As you note, most Republicans and some Democrats oppose sweeping new measures, which is why an assault-weapons ban still seems unlikely. But some other measures may be able to win overwhelming support from Democrats and enough from Republicans to pass both the House and Senate. The two leading candidates are an expansion of criminal background checks on people buying guns and a new federal trafficking law to block criminal purchases.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/politics/david-leonhardt-washington-bureau-chief-answers-readers-questions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss