If you’re going to rail against wasteful, corrupt spending, as Rep. Lauren Boebert does routinely, you better do all you can to justify your own hefty $174,000 salary.

Boebert didn’t vote on the biggest issue facing the country last week – the debt-limit compromise. Cue the jokes about 3rd Congressional District constituents overpaying to be underrepresented.

She tried to spin her absence as intentionally sitting out the vote to protest what she considers a sham bill. But a video posted to Twitter by a CNN reporter appears to contradict that. The video shows Boebert scurrying up the U.S. Capitol steps and being told she missed the vote.

Voting against the bill wouldn’t have changed the outcome – and we would have criticized Boebert had she done so for supporting a manufactured default. So, aside from not being honest with her constituents, the whole thing amounted to a “no harm, no foul” situation given our contention that a vote against the bill was a vote to needlessly harm Americans.

Still, despite having a charismatic congresswoman who treats representation as performance art – a fact so ludicrous as to inspire actual chuckles – there’s nothing funny about the fiscal insanity that underpins these debit-limit standoffs.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

In other words, Boebert and her ilk aren’t wrong to point out that the federal government’s spending trajectory isn’t sustainable. It isn’t. But defaulting on the nation’s debts is hardly the way to fix the problem.

The same centrists forces that came together to avert the default must carry that spirit of give-and-take into future budget negotiations and demand a real bipartisan debate on reducing the federal budget deficit.

If the majority of Congress agrees that default – and its disastrous economic consequences – isn’t an option, how about putting more thought into avoiding the possibility of brinksmanship in the first place?

That would require a series of serious conversations about an appropriate tax code, appropriate tax enforcement, appropriate spending, entitlement reform and a reasonable cap on the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio. It would force both sides to answer uncomfortable questions, like whether it’s more important to reduce military spending or Medicaid spending. These are the conversations Americans need to hear to believe we still have some capacity as a nation to solve problems rather than just point fingers and retreat to extremist positions.

It’s time to dust off the Simpson-Bowles spending reduction proposals as a starting point.

Congress needs a better way to impose fiscal responsibility. The debt-ceiling doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense. After Congress votes on a spending bill – which always involves deficit spending – it then votes on whether to borrow enough money to make good on its debts. It’s the essence of insanity to have a mechanism in place that so easily lends itself to hostage-taking.

Congress has increased or suspended the debt limit 78 times since 1960, according to the Treasury Department. After last week’s compromise bill, the U.S. still hasn’t defaulted, but it keeps inching closer to the precipice.

But it’s just a symptom of Congress’ reluctance to acknowledge the elephant in the room. For the sake of future generations, lawmakers must pledge to stop spending more than the Treasury takes in.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

Read the original article here.