The current Washington negotiations on cutting the national debt are about more than money.

They will set key national policies for years to come.

The Bush-era tax cuts for middle income taxpayers were meant to stimulate the economy and then end. While in effect, they have given the United States among the lowest rates in the industrialized world.

While they did little for the economy and increased the federal deficit, they have become politically untouchable.

With the recession and people out of work or struggling on lower incomes, now is not the time to consider raising their taxes. Instead, Democrats and Republicans agree that middleincome taxpayers should have as much disposable income as possible to help increase retail sales.

Beyond recovery, the lower rates have become the new normal, so they are probably here to stay.

The Bush cuts also included lower rates for the wealthy. President Obama insists that these rates must be raised.

Republicans would prefer seeing all rates made permanent, but they understand that Obama has something of a mandate to increase levies on the rich.

Their solution is to reduce the tax loopholes used by the wealthy, but leave the lower rates in place. Even if the Democrats accept this approach, they will want some increase in the rates applying perhaps only to those with taxable incomes above $500,000.

The budget deal is likely to cost the wealthy some of the Bush benefits, accepting the principle that the growing income gap between the rich and the not-so-rich should be narrowed.

On the spending side, some big decisions will also be made.

The Defense Department has produced a reduced budget reflecting what it sees as the changing nature of the military challenges the country faces. It expects to use technology more and troops less.

Mitt Romney wanted to give the Defense Department more than it had asked for, but the more realistic approach will be to assure it what it has requested. The new strategy will, in effect, be approved.

Military spending is frequently seen as an economic development program more than a defense matter, but some local boosters in Congress are going to have to accept less this time around.

The big questions about other spending cuts will be about how much and where.

Entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — will be in the crosshairs. That’s because their costs increase markedly each year and consume an ever-larger share of the national budget.

One thing is sure. Nobody now on Social Security or Medicare or about to become eligible will lose any payments they now expect.

The cost of these programs must come under greater control and their revenues increased. Whether that will happen now is still unsettled.

The age of eligibility for full Social Security payments could be increased even more than is now happening, to take into account the increased length of life.

The ceiling on income subject to the payroll tax used to fund Social Security could be eliminated. And the added premiums now paid by upper-income Medicare recipients could be expanded.

Among the biggest, immediate battles will be cuts to other government programs. At its core, the argument is about the appropriate role of government.

Politicians often talk about cutting government waste, and there’s no doubt there is a lot of inefficiency in government. But such savings require the kind of detailed attention for which there is now little time.

It is easier to cut out entire programs than to make existing programs more efficient.

The problem with making such cuts is that everybody benefits in some way from the federal government, and each wants only the programs benefitting others to be slashed.

Budget cutting here will reveal much about federal government priorities. How much federal support will there be for education? Health care? Public television?

While we might like to believe that this process of setting priorities will be reasonable, it probably won’t.

Entrenched bureaucracies and corporate lobbyists will have a lot to say about the programs that survive. And senators and members of Congress may have a hard time reducing spending on projects that benefit their constituents no matter their merits.

The resolution of these issues is necessary if the federal debt is to be reduced. The nature of the deal will say a lot about policies we can expect from Washington for the next decade.

The pressure is on, but all may not all be settled by the end of the year. There may be some temporary patches.

The president will want to get the job done in the coming two years, before the next congressional elections and the start of the next presidential campaign.

GORDON L. WEIL, of Harpswell, is an author, publisher, consultant and former public official.