On his way out the door, retiring Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) had a lot to say. It was a final reminder -- he called it a challenge -- from one of the Senate’s foremost deficit hawks of why deficits matter and why much more must be done to do bring them under control.

Once again we have a political punt.

With no time left on the clock, Senate Democrats and Republicans have approved a deal to avoid the most immediate consequences of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The defining feature of the deal, however, is that it leaves much more to be done.

The deal -- which the House must still vote on -- requires no hard choices and solves no difficult problems.  

For the third week in a row, I will be discussing the nation’s fiscal challenges on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal

With the latest exchange of offers, President Obama and House Speaker Boehner have moved closer to a deal that would reduce the deficit by about $2 trillion over the next decade.  On the surface, the split between spending cuts and tax increases seems relatively even and this is likely to be a point of resistance for those who argue for greater spending cuts.  Lost in the rhetoric, however, is that some policies traditionally defined as “tax increases” are really “spending cuts.”

The long-standing impasse on tax policy has basically boiled down to this: Democrats want more revenue, raised entirely from households with incomes over $250,000. Republicans don’t want any new revenue, and especially not from higher tax rates on the rich. It seems like an irreconcilable difference.

But if you get beyond the predicable partisan rhetoric there is room for optimism that a deal can be reached.

At last week’s 105th annual conference of the National Tax Association in Providence, R.I., former Clinton Treasury secretary and Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers explained that the tax reform needed today is very different from the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Signals from the first post-election budget meeting between the President and congressional leaders, which took place at the White House on Friday, were very good.

Congressional leaders of both parties appeared together after the meeting. There were no lines in the sand, no threats, and no impugning each other’s motives.

Example isn’t the main thing in influencing others – it is the only thing. – Albert Schweitzer

Increasingly alarmed by the nation’s deteriorating fiscal outlook and the failure of our political system to produce timely, common sense solutions, some state officials have begun to show leadership. They can do much more.

This year, the United States Conference of Mayors and the two leading associations of state legislators issued compelling resolutions that urge action by their federal counterparts. 

Congratulations to the Election Day winners. So what do Tuesday's results mean for the fiscal outlook?

Think of it this way.

If the country is on an unsustainable fiscal path, which it is, and if continued partisan bickering will not solve this problem, which it won’t, and if divided government has been re-elected, which it has, then the only choices are calamity or compromise.

The Concord Coalition urges compromise.

This is Part II of a two-part series of posts on the presidential candidates' fiscal policies. Part I examines Governor Romney's plans.