The debate in Congress over the 2011-12 budget will set the course of our country for decades, and where that course leads depends on which of two opposing visions of the future prevails… one from the Congressional Republicans and one from President Obama.

The Republican vision is offered as a promise of fiscal accountability. Their proposal for the remainder of this fiscal year is to slash government programs indiscriminately (the latest plan is to take $100 billion out of this year’s budget), and to cripple or eliminate basic services. But be wary: seizing the deficit issue as an excuse for dismantling social programs has been their methodology since the days of President Reagan, and they are ramping it up one more time.

The only response from Republicans to the President’s 2011-12 budget proposal is to complain that it doesn’t cut deeply enough, and their plan for the future is one that starts today and ends with the November 6, 2012 election.

It comes with a three-fold agenda: defeating President Obama, winning control of the Senate and holding the House of Representatives, and then fulfilling their long-held dream of dismantling the social safety net. This agenda and not the deficit is at the heart of Republican budget politics.

What the Republicans have not done is offer a compelling vision of America’s future; rather, they have shouted out prophecies of immanent doom unless their schemes are adopted without change. Their methodology is to cower opponents by using the proven scorched-earth tactics of past political wars:  create fear, frame issues with clever slogans, and be unrelenting in attacking and smearing anyone who dares to disagree.

They reduce complex issues to bumper-sticker simplicity, and obscure counter arguments with loud, threatening, cynical, misleading and relentless rhetoric filled with half-truths and untruths.

This strategy worked in selling the Iraq war, implementing tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest people, sacrificing our environment on the altar of commerce, watering down the health care bill, persuading Americans to give up individual liberty in the name of security, and attacking and delaying anything that President Obama proposed.

So, why should we be surprised that Republicans are using it again to do more of the same? Economist Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate, wrote in his New York Times column that the Republican vision should be labeled “Eat the Future.”

President Obama’s budget, on the other hand, begins with a solid and serious attack on the deficit (a $1.1trillion reduction in 10 years), but it offers an entirely different vision … a vision that feeds rather than eats the future.  It seeks to improve our schools, provide jobs and a more secure energy supply through green energy programs, modernize the transportation system, and begin restoring our infrastructure.

The President envisions an America in which every citizen has access to health care, every child has an equal opportunity for a good education, serious steps are made in combating the dangers of climate change, and the nation’s buildings, bridges, roads and waterways are in good repair. His budget does not get us there, but it points the way and makes a start.

The Obama budget also offers plans for generating revenue to pay for investments in the future. For instance, the proposed energy investments are paid for by eliminating tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies; and, itemized deductions for the very rich are capped as a way to pay for eliminating the alternative minimum tax that would otherwise hit middle income earners.

The President’s budget is not perfect, and it is not bold enough for me. If I were in Congress I would question his budget staff about some of the priorities, and would suggest alternatives.

But I accept the general premises that we cannot destroy the future in the name of cost cutting, and that we must seek common ground among competing interests. On balance, I believe that this budget offers a practical blueprint for moving forward. You can read a summary of the Obama budget in the blog column “Budget Meets Two Goals” at www.whitehouse.gov.

What is the Republican position? They oppose the President’s initiatives, and in doing so claim to be responding to the will of the people. A recent Pew Research Center poll, however, suggests that my views, and not theirs, are in the mainstream: either a majority or a plurality of the people favor increases in education, veterans’ benefits, health care, Medicare, energy, scientific research, environmental protection, agriculture, anti-terrorism defense, and combating crime.

Another interesting subset of questions in that poll had to do with state actions to balance their budgets. Sixty seven percent of the people interviewed were against cutting funding for roads and public transportation; 66% against cutting colleges and universities; 76% against cutting healthcare; and 79% against cutting K through 12 public schools. The people are clearly on the side of investing in the future.

There is no question that in any discussion of the future we have to take deficits seriously, and that we have to make compromises and suffer some pain to accomplish a meaningful reduction. This means that we must look at revenue increases along with budget cuts.

It means that the politically difficult issues of Medicare and Medicaid must be addressed, again with a positive vision of putting them on sound foundations rather than indiscriminately slashing life-sustaining services that are critical to the poor and the elderly.  This will take bold leadership and cannot be left to those whose solution is to abandon these programs in the name of a balanced budget.

Hard decisions will also be needed to ensure that Social Security funding is secure, perhaps through a combination of tax and fee increases, and benefit cuts.  For instance, it makes sense to me to extend the Social Security tax beyond the present $106,000.

Back in 1983 when the Greenspan Commission “fixed” Social Security, the ceiling was set so that the tax would hit 90% of wages, but today it has fallen to 84%. If the 90% figure were restored the ceiling would rise to $180,000 and the Social Security problem would be solved. (These figures are thanks to Robert Reich in an article at Dailymarkets.com)

I view a budget as an expression of the soul of an organization. A careful examination of a nation’s budget will tell us if the country is compassionate or war like; if it is living up to obligations as a world citizen, or turning inward; if it is moving toward the future, stagnant, or shuffling backwards; if its leaders care more about the future of their children than about consolidating their present-day power and wealth.

Cutting a budget, therefore, should never begin solely with a number target, but with a serious conversation about a vision for the future. Priorities can then be set that serve the common good rather than special interests. Budget balancing is not a sacred obligation, but sustaining the common good through equality of opportunity is.

The Republican mantra that balancing the budget is an end in itself is destructive nonsense. So, too, is their suggestion that the government should live within its income because that is what the citizens must do: American households have a cumulative debt of $13.5 trillion, or more that $40,000 per person. Total household debt is 122% of disposable income, and more than 70% is for a mortgage.

In other words, Americans assume debt to fund necessities of life, pay for the education of their children, and for future investment. Successful businesses borrow to fund both current operations and investments in future growth. So should our government invest in securing the future.

For me the future is reflected in my four grandchildren and their contemporaries across the country. Their lives will be better and more secure if every child in their classroom has access to quality health care, has adequate nutrition and lives in a safe neighborhood. After all, sick and hungry and neglected children will not learn in the best school systems, and the behavior of children who are sick and hungry and neglected affect the demeanor of an entire classroom.

Their lives will be better and more secure if the teachers who teach them are paid and treated like the professionals they are; and, if school facilities are safe and technologically up to date. This will take an increase, not a decrease, in funding.

Our children’s and grandchildren’s lives will be better and more secure if they have access to good public transportation, clean air and water, and universal health care. This will take an increase, not a decrease in funding.

Their lives will be better and more secure if our public leaders would focus as much on reforming the tax code as they do on reducing budgets. The budget of the United States of America cannot be brought under control through cuts alone without destroying the future for my grandchildren. The revenue side must be addressed, and those who reap the extraordinary privileges of wealth need to share more of the burden.

Our country is on a dangerous course, and Republicans relish this as an opportunity to usher in draconian policies under the guise of deficit control. Their vision is one in which the rich get richer, the economic divide in the USA gets wider, and the environment is sold out to drilling, digging, burning and chopping.

The President articulates a different vision of the future and has offered some good ideas for realizing it. However, he and the Democrats in Congress seem to be afraid of directly challenging proposals that are divisive and destructive; forcefully pointing out the truth when Republicans make false statements; and, boldly engaging the American people in a conversation about the future and about the sacrifices that will required of us in order to secure it (see the article on leadership in the next column).

I believe that the people will respond positively if they are treated like adults, if they are spoken to honestly and with respect. The people are the key: Leaders will start speaking sense only when the people refuse to listen to nonsense.

Please, Mr. President, give us that chance. Challenge us to rise above our parochial interests and temptations for short-term gain. Challenge us to focus on what it will take to win the future for our grandchildren (rather than what it will take to win the next election).