Hopefully you know about what DC insiders are calling the fiscal cliff. It’s kind of boring and labor-intensive to write about, so I haven’t been writing about it too much. Essentially, we have two things that will happen on New Year’s Day if Congress doesn’t do something to prevent them from happening. The first thing that will happen is that Bush’s tax cuts will expire, which means that everyone who pays income taxes will see an increase in their tax liability. The second thing that will happen is that the “sequester” will kick in. The sequester is a series of huge across-the-board budget cuts that include a $55 billion/year cut for the Pentagon.
Now, progressives have been calling for higher marginal income tax rates and cuts to defense spending for a long time. We might not be overly concerned at the prospect of seeing those wishes fulfilled on January 1st. But the sequester doesn’t just cut defense spending. It cuts all spending…by a lot. With the exception of Social Security, and with some protections for Medicaid and Medicare recipients, the budget cuts would hit every program there is. Also, across-the-board tax increases coupled with huge cuts in government spending would create a jolt in the economy, likely slowing economic growth or even sending us into recession.
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have decided that they are willing to take that risk. Understanding why requires a little bit of explanation.
At it’s most basic, this is Grover Norquist’s fault. Congress hasn’t raised marginal income taxes in twenty-one years, since Poppy Bush broke his “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” pledge. At the rate we’re going, we will never raise marginal tax rates again. Normally, raising taxes requires an affirmative act. Congress has to do something. They have vote for tax hikes. But that is not true with the Bush tax cuts. Because Bush didn’t have enough votes to overcome a filibuster against his tax cuts, he passed them using the budget reconciliation rules (with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote each time). The price of using the budget reconciliation rules is that the tax cuts automatically expire (or sunset) after ten years. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts expired in 2011, but they were extended for two years as part of a deal that extended unemployment benefits, ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and allowed the passage of the New START Treaty. The Democrats are willing to let the entire Bush tax cut package expire for two reasons. First, they’ll never be able to reverse the inexorably downward pressure on tax rates for the rich if they rely on actually getting Congress to act. Letting them expire reverses the leverage, requiring an affirmative act to lower the rates. Second, they don’t have to vote for a tax hike. They let them expire due to Republican intransigence, and then they all get to vote for tax cuts for the middle class.
The only downside is doing things this way causes real economic pain and confusion. Companies that have contracts with the government do not know if those contracts will be renewed and may stop hiring or start preemptive layoffs. People will have to assume that their taxes are going up and make plans accordingly, which will reduce consumer spending. The cuts in government spending will be done with a hacksaw instead of modern surgical equipment, and the Defense cuts are bigger and more sudden than the Defense Secretary can endorse. So, going over the fiscal cliff is certainly not a desirable thing. But it has become necessary because the Republicans are simply implacable in their refusal to make any kind of deal that is fair to the middle class and the poor.
Some of the damage of going over the fiscal cliff can be mitigated. For example, the president and the Democrats can make it very clear that their top priority in the new year will be to restore the current tax rate to anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. And they can promise to fix the defense budget, too. These are also things that they should have no problem accomplishing, especially if Obama is reelected.
The Republicans know that they can make political hay about the fiscal cliff all they want, but they have no real leverage. Some Republicans, like Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, are starting to attack Grover Norquist because the anti-tax pledge they’ve made to Norquist is preventing the GOP from coalescing around a deal that would result in a less negative outcome (from a greedy rich person or defense contractor’s point of view).
The Democrats have a few different motivations here. They don’t really want to go over the fiscal cliff but they are willing to do so for the reasons I have explained. They also feel that their credible threat will break the unity among Republicans which will not only lead to a deal, but will finally break Norquist’s iron grip on the party, leading to more sanity later on. Breaking that grip might be the greatest victory we could have.
The best time to go over the fiscal cliff is on the eve of a recession (which we’re on), so it may work out okay. (In the sense that if we were to have a cut in spending and an increase in taxes happen immediately after a recession it’d work as a sort of anti-stimulus and could cause a double dip whereas going into the recession it’s not going to have an outsized effect.)
well, the point it to either force a deal that won’t cause a dip or to assure everyone that the problems will be quickly fixed in the new Congress.
Agreed, but with an intransigent GOP a deal might not happen, so at least the timing of the cliff might work out ok.
Do you really think there will be a deal before the election? Or even before the new year comes? I don’t think so. The only way we’ll even begin to break Grover’s grip is to let rates rise come January 1.
actually, you have it exactly wrong. If we go over the cliff, then Grover’s troops held and the unity was not broken.
Then, if the Dems control at least house of Congress they can bring up another vote for Obama’s one year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income, no?
Right.
Then the vote is for tax cuts for 98% of the people. Actually, quite a bit less, because a lot of people don’t pay any federal income tax, but still…
The Republicans are not going to vote to keep taxes high on most people’s income.
They will never deal unless the 1% gets theirs. They will keep it up until Obama blinks. When the Bush tax cuts did not expir the first time, they became de facto permanent.
And as I have said before, why is the White House framing this as extension of the Bush tax cuts instead of a whole new Obama tax package to replace the Bush tax cuts?
When the Bush tax cuts did not expir the first time, they became de facto permanent.
Is that sort of like how Obama backing off the 18-month timetable for withdrawing from Iraq meant that the troops were never leaving?
Obama didn’t “blink” in 2010: he traded away the tax cuts for a list of legislative priorities that had already passed the Democratic House. He signed the tax cut deal, the Senate Republicans lifted the filibuster, and a whole herd of ponies thundered across the political landscape.
This time, Obama and the Democrats are a great deal more popular than they were in 2010, and the Teabagger Congress has no ponies to trade. That’s probably why he issued a veto threat over any bill that extended the upper-income tax cuts.
With real sadness I saw my predictions confirmed at http://www.electionprojection.com.
Obama will be re-elected, the Republicans will take the Senate and keep the House, despite a predicted complete flip in the Illinois delegation (from 11R, 8D to 11D, 7R, Obama by 18%).
Faced with a totally Republican Congress, Obama really will have no choice. The Bush Cuts are permanent.
an intriguing idea. One that will never pass but intriguing none the less. A constitutional amendment that requires congress to review and rewrite the tax code every 20 years. Her reasoning – the tax code is like a tree that needs to be periodically pruned. What is today’s tax incentive for the investment we want to encourage is possibly tomorrow’s loophole.
Intriguing idea, but there will have to be mechanisms in place to break dead-locks when new codes are being negotiated.
There’s little point in discussing any of this until the composition of the 2013 Congress is known.
Just a bunch of candy-ass hostage takers pretending to be hard right up until consumer confidence numbers start to tank. Then, just like TARP or auto company loans in 08 or the kick-the-can fake compromise of 2011, they’ll all scurry around behind closed doors and cobble together some stall tactic to push things off until a later date.
There are a number of key issues here:
Its almost a win, win, win for progressives, unless the economy is ultimately pushed into a lasting recession fro which Obama (in his second term) will be unable to escape the blame.
L. O. L.
You stay on the lookout for that boom, alright, buddy?
My point precisely. The sequester kicking in will likely cause a recession damaging Dem prospects in 2014 and beyond unless they can complement it with stimulus measures and selective tax cuts.
I agree with you about the tax changes, but I wouldn’t be so sanguine about the sequester. The automatic cuts to domestic spending would be brutal. Once people realize what they will do, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the dems to compromise. (I speak somewhat self-interestedly here, as I have a big NIH grant that is up for funding. If the sequester happens, my lab goes caput. But I’m sure I’m not the only one in a similar situation…this applies to practically anyone who is expecting money from the government.)
Someone needs to identify how much spending the sequester actually cuts in FY2013 and FY2014. The huge numbers bandied around are ten-year totals. Just a way to scare and mislead the public (especially about defense spending cuts.) As I remember the one-year cut for defense spending is around 10% of defense budget.
And kicking it over to next year makes sense if you think that the House returns to Democratic hands.
And BTW, companies that have been living off Uncle Sugar and funding Republicans deserve to be hit. Folks in the job market have had “uncertainty” for at least four years and arguably more.