Raising the debt ceiling, like so much else in Washington, D.C., has become political theater, devolving to a game of chicken. Both sides admit that failing to raise the debt ceiling, which essentially would mean the United States defaulting on debts, is unimaginable. Such a move, even if only technical, would send shock waves through financial markets and likely raise interest rates.

Republicans want to tie any increase in the debt ceiling to a reduction in federal spending. And that’s not unreasonable, because the need to raise the debt ceiling is symbolic of the federal government’s unsustainable spending. Because cutting long-term spending will be politically unpopular with some people, the debt ceiling deal would give the weak-kneed in Congress political cover.

Congressional leaders and the White House are negotiating to find a compromise solution. Both sides seem to accept the idea that raising the debt ceiling should be tied to a reduction in long-term spending. The disagreement is over how much to cut, how fast to cut and where to cut.

This week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said he was “cautiously optimistic” that a deal that cuts spending while approving a higher debt ceiling would be reached by Aug. 2, the date when Treasury Department maneuvers to avoid default will be exhausted.

Some Democrats charge that Republicans, notably House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, are blackmailing Democrats and President Barack Obama to make spending cuts larger than he would like to make. But reasonable people from both sides of the political aisle know that current spending levels — particularly with entitlements — are not sustainable.

Last week, some surprising support for linking a debt ceiling approval with spending cuts came from economist Alice Rivlin, who was budget director under President Bill Clinton. Rivlin says linking a debt ceiling vote to long-term spending reductions is the right approach.

“There’s no mystery about what we ought to do, we just need to get on with it,” is the way Rivlin sees the current stalemate. That’s a refreshingly honest statement.

Everyone in Washington does know what needs to be done; they just have to start doing it — and quit playing politics. As usual, the devil will be in the details — how to cut and where, to protect the most vulnerable, but keep the programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, viable.

Rivlin also said that short-term spending is not the problem. She suggested cutting too much in the short term would harm the economic recovery — something Republicans should consider.

Rivlin also offered a sensible view on the recent warning by Moody’s Investor’s Service that it might downgrade the federal government’s credit rating over failure to produce a long-range spending plan that slashes the deficit. Based on the lack of political courage on display in Washington these days, Rivlin said, “Moody’s is right to be worried.”

And on the subject of Medicare, the entitlement most threatened by spending trends and a political lightning rod, Rivlin again spoke the truth that too few in Washington are willing to speak. She said cuts in future Medicare spending must “absolutely” be included in any long-term plan. Anyone who denies this is not well-informed — or is dishonest.

The debt ceiling must be raised. Long-term spending must be cut. Americans can only hope that the politicians negotiating a deal linking the two will be as honest and straightforward as Rivlin.

As usual, the most honest, straightforward voices in Washington are those of people no longer in office and away from Washington’s partisan games.