Chronicle Editorial

Despite flaws, budget deal a positive step
     You missed an incredible development last week if you weren’t paying attention to the news: Congress passed a two-year budget, proving it can reach bipartisan agreement and create some semblance of a functioning government.
     The deal suspends the nation’s debt limit through March 2017 and increases federal spending for domestic and defense programs by more than $80 billion. Democrats backed the bill with broad support, but it received a cool response from Republicans who felt it contained too much spending. Despite criticism, the deal will avert a government default and end a lengthy battle between the president and Congress over future fiscal policy.
     The budget deal isn’t perfect. However, it’s nice to see Congress come to an agreement and avoid more patchwork fixes. The past five years have been marred by last-minute compromises that led to instability, fears of default and threats of shutdowns. Simply put, Congress had been governing by crisis and it was getting old.
     Lawmakers still have to adopt spending bills for the next two years, but the budget deal will reduce the risk of a shutdown by setting spending targets and allowing Congress to return to the regular appropriations process. It also gives members a chance to regroup and rethink the budget negotiation process. Many lawmakers have decried the current system and feel party leadership makes too many backdoor deals. Their claims seem warranted, and Congress should shift gears by making the process more inclusive. New Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has made it a priority moving forward and it will be interesting to see if he follows through.
     While the pros and cons of this deal will be debated at length, Americans can rest easy now that it’s in place. The days of impending deadlines and other calamities will seemingly get put on hold for the next two years, which is a positive step and a welcomed change. Governing by crisis is no way to run a country. Hopefully Congress finally figured that out.
 
Media meltdowns
     Much has been made in the aftermath of last week’s Republican presidential debate. Though candidates fought ferociously to gain an edge on stage, most attention was focused on the head-scratching questions posed by the debate’s moderators.
     By most accounts, CNBC’s crew did a less-than-stellar job. They were booed by the audience, criticized by the candidates and seemed rather unprepared for the event. This situation came to a head when candidate Ted Cruz lashed out at the group, criticizing their questions and alleging bias. Cruz later capitalized on the outburst by declaring “war on the liberal media” and raising $1.1 million the day after the debate.
     The remarks made by Cruz and other candidates were inflated and self-serving, but they’re worth looking at. Many of the moderators’ questions seemed out of place and irrelevant. Jeb Bush was asked about online sports betting, Donald Trump was asked if he was running a comic-book presidential campaign, and one question seemed to belittle Marco Rubio’s age. Those questions failed to add substance to the debate and demeaned the political process. Voters can’t determine a candidate’s stance on important issues like economic policy if moderators fail to ask the proper questions.
     With the CNBC debate in the rearview, it will be important for future moderators to learn from the mistakes and create more substantive discourse. Strong questions bring out each candidate’s true colors and give voters insight into their platforms. Last week’s debate fell short in that regard, and voters can only hope things improve at the next one. The GOP field is overcrowded and could benefit from tough questions that separate strong candidates from the rest of the pack.