CEOs missing in action in US fiscal fight Last year I listened to Erskine Bowles, the wisecracking Democrat who has campaigned for bipartisan fiscal reform, throw down a gauntlet to American business. Speaking to an audience of corporate executives, at Harvard Business School, Mr Bowles begged them to support his efforts to forge a practical deal - and argued that this corporate voice was crucial to breaking Washington gridlock. In the event, the appeal fell on deaf ears; chief executives have been missing in action (MIA) - or missing from the political fiscal action - in the past year. True, some figures, such as David Cote, head of Honeywell, have spoken out. But this is rare; instead of pushing for a grand bargain, most executives have grumbled about political gridlock on earnings calls. Gillian Tett But could this finally be about to change? That is the intriguing question being asked in both New York and Washington. And it is an issue investors would do well to watch. For as the election heats up, a quiet new initiative has recently got under way to co-opt those MIA corporate leaders into the fiscal fight. Most notably, under the framework of a group known as The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - led by people such as Maya MacGuineas with the spiritual leadership of Mr Bowles and Alan Simpson - Washington and Wall Street players are trying to persuade those CEOs to support a campaign for bipartisan action. So far, about 100 CEOs have signed up, including Jamie Dimon (of JPMorgan), Lloyd Blankfein (of Goldman Sachs), Jeff Immelt (of General Electric), and Mr Cote himself. Pete Peterson, the former private equity guru and long-time champion of fiscal reform, is providing broad support too. The group has raised more than $30m and expects to raise more, to fund lobbying and public debate, via conferences, advertisements and social media (Mr Bowles, as it happens, is on the Facebook board.) But it is unclear just how effective this new drive will be. After all, last year's appeal notably ran into the sand. But what is perhaps most interesting - and telling - is what the campaign's strategy suggests about the possible future path of fiscal action. Most notably, these 100-odd business leaders apparently have little hope that anyone can strike a grand fiscal bargain before December 31 (or when the US is slated to fall off that fiscal cliff); Republicans and Democrats are too far apart in rhetoric, and the issues too complex, to get the details settled in the lame duck session after the November 6 vote. So, instead, the campaign is preparing a two-pronged line of attack. Between November 6 and December 31, business leaders will push for a preliminary deal, which would delay that dangerous end-of-year fiscal squeeze - in exchange for a bipartisan commitment to honour some basic goals, such as an overall deficit reduction target, or rough balance of spending and revenue measures. The idea is that this will create breathing space, but also keep the markets calm. Then, in the first six months of next year, there will be a serious drive to hammer out a grandiose fiscal plan. For by then, it should be easier to turn the vague commitments into a tangible package, since the balance of the new government will be clear and the public deeply familiar with the issues. Or so the argument goes. Could this work? As strategies go, it certainly sounds sensible. And after listening to this week's presidential debate, it is not impossible to imagine this two-part scheme falling into place. For while President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney threw plenty of mud at each others" plans, both also referred back to the initial fiscal deal proposed by the Bowles-Simpson fiscal committee two years ago; moreover, they did so without overt hostility. But the devil - as so often - is in the detail: or, more specifically, what the ideological balance of the next Congress will be, and where the faultlines on defence spending and tax increases, say, lie. And perhaps the biggest single obstacle to success is that markets - like those CEOs - have remained so quiet. A few decades ago, Democratic strategist James Carville famously observed that if he were reincarnated he would want to be the bond market since that can "intimidate everybody." But these days, with 10-year Treasury yields at 1.7 per cent, the US bond market is not creating any terror, or even a sense of urgency. If Mr Bowles really wants to get CEOs and congressmen moving, in other words, he does not just need a Facebook page; he could do with a "goldilocks" bond wobble too (ie a jolt just big enough to concentrate minds, but not so fierce that it causes real financial pain). But don't bet on that happening soon; or not, at least, while Europe is writhing in pain, and the Fed keeps gobbling up Treasury bonds on an eye-popping scale.