Skip to main content

I don't take a decision to go over the fiscal cliff lightly. Economists think doing so will cause a recession. Since I'm advocating going over the cliff, I'd like to think the economists' are, um, skewed --- pardon the indulgence in a bit of post-election schadenfreude --- but the case for the projections being wrong is that it would be convenient for me if they were wrong. Another recession would mean a drop in government revenues that makes the federal deficit and state shortfalls even worse, unemployment would presumably go up, and since real people will gt hurt, it's just nothing to take lightly. Then why go over?

The Republicans, by agreeing to sequestrations and tax cut expirations if no "grand bargain" could be worked out following the debt ceiling crisis (sorry, their debt ceiling crisis, let no one forget that), unwittingly gave us a chance to achieve two long sought policy goals: ending the Bush tax cuts, and cutting defense.

The estimates of how much we outspend the rest of the world vary, but once we're in the range of spending as much as the next 20 nations or next 25, does precision really matter? The defense contractor lobby is very tough to beat, and it has some Democrats seeking to shore-up their tough-on-whoever credentials to go along with a party of self-proclaimed fiscal hawks who give the Pentagon everything it wants, and then a bunch of stuff it doesn't want but gets built in Rep. So-and-So's district. Cutting defense has seemed impossible, until now. Now half the sequestered funds will come from defense. At last. If we go over the cliff.

Same with the Bush tax cuts. After a decade of blowing up the deficit and exacerbating income inequality, they were supposed to expire at the end of 2010, when the Republicans found a hostage. I know they hate that description, but I don't know how else to characterize it when they said that if the Bush tax cuts weren't extended in their entirety, including upper incomes, then unemployment insurance extensions would end too. Were they aware that unemployment was high, and millions of long-term unemployed people had no income besides the extended benefits? Of course they were. That was how they could use unemployed people for leverage to force the extension of Bush's tax cuts. I supported taking the deal two years ago. Why not this time?

To be sure, it's something of a cold equation. Unemployment is down in general and long-term. Unemployed people will be hurt by the end of the extensions, but there are fewer of them to be hurt. Maybe it's time to stop paying ransom. Moreover, when the Republicans make proposals to avoid the fiscal cliff, they usually entail keeping all the tax cuts and replacing defense's share of spending cuts with more domestic spending cuts. Makes me think that restricting the domestic cuts to what is already scheduled is the best we'll do.

That's the sacrifice. In terms of gains, though I accept that the fiscal cliff is likely to cause a recession, I'm skeptical about the stimulative effect of tax cuts generally, and upper income tax cuts seem bound to actually cause harm. The Obama tax cuts will come to an end too, but other than the payroll tax holiday, I'm unconvinced they're helping. If we're not going to get a stimulus effect, then even though it's still premature to worry about deficit reduction, might as well have deficit reduction. Besides, at some point, the economy will have recovered enough to make deficit reduction the priority, so if we can't have stimulus, then end the tax cuts and cut the deficit. Something that goes unspoken during attempts to end just the upper income tax cuts is that when the time comes to turn our attention to deficit reduction, the middle class cuts will have to end too. We simple can't afford them. If we can't end them at a better time, then abruptly it is.

Defense spending likewise is generally the least stimulative spending. Funny though, when it comes to something in their own districts, the austerians of domestic spending suddenly turn into complete Keynesians, pleading for continued spending because of the jobs it creates. I'm sure every contractor's lobbyists make the same case. Should we stop the defense cuts for the sake of fiscal stimulus? If defense could be cut later when deficit reduction becomes a real priority and spending is based on need, sure. Anybody think that's how it's going to work? Frankly, if we're ever going to cut our bloated defense spending, now's our chance.

If we're cutting things that don't stimulate much or at all, then where is this recession going to come from? From the sudden cuts in domestic spending. From a purely economic point of view, they shouldn't happen. In terms of hurting vulnerable people, they shouldn't happen. In terms of political reality, I return to what I said above: when all proposals for saving defense spending and Bush's tax cuts involve cutting domestic spending even more, I despair of avoiding the scheduled cuts.

So a recession it is --- or rather a worse recession, since we might be thrown into another one anyway after the pounding Hurricane Sandy just gave the country's biggest economic engine. Long term, in policy terms, given the chance to at long last cut defense and end the Bush tax cuts, the cost is worth it. Since going over the cliff is a decent deal from a Democratic point of view, we have the leverage. I don't know that the Republicans understand that, but they'll eventually figure out the leverage is on our side at last. They'll figure out this isn't like the debt ceiling crisis and the time a few months before that when they nearly shut down the federal government.

The president and the congressional Democrats need not give the Republicans a thing.

cross-posted at MN Progressive Project

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the Fiscal Bluff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, a2nite

    Not the fiscal cliff. :)

    Nice diary.  I totally agree with calling their bluff on taxes and defense.

    ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

    by EagleOfFreedom on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:27:05 AM PST

    •  EoF - my view is that we will go over the cliff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83

      And that any "grand bargain" will be done in the 113th Congress won't happen for at least six months until the impact of going over the cliff is better known and the political fallout is better understood. I agree that going over the cliff gives the Dems their best position and leverage. However, I don't agree with many here that the House Republicans will feel significant pressure to make a deal.    

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:02:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  GOP will be pressured to make a deal (0+ / 0-)

        However, the pressure from their side will be to make a deal to save the Bush upper income tax cuts. I'm sure they would let the Obama tax cuts die since they've always denied they exist, but they'll try hard to save the Bush tax cuts. However, the Bush upper income tax cuts are the one thing the Democrats won't go for, so I don't see what they negotiate over. Some Democrats would go along with weakening the defense sequestration, but that means more domestic cuts, and the whole concept is that the cuts are equal. I do worry some Democrats will undermine us on that.

        If the spending cuts go into effect and the tax cuts expire, I see no reason to renegotiate in a few months. We'll have suffered the effects already.

        •  ericf - what they will negotiate over is (0+ / 0-)

          more spending cuts to offset the reduction in tax revenue. They will require that any tax cuts be matched in some ratio to spending cuts. They may also tie future spending levels to tax rates, something that has been discussed because past spending limits have just been disregarded by future sessions of Congress. Spending restraints would only bind the 113th Congress, they have no legal standing for future sessions and can be overturned by a simple vote of Congress.

          The fiscal cliff is more of a slide than a steep drop, so whenever a deal is reached the impact is moderated.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:23:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mostly agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83

    It's not a good thing, I think it will cause a mild recession by the end of this year, but I don't see getting a better deal from Republicans.  As it is, I suspect a lot in Congress realize this is the best they are going to get, it's just that nobody on either side of the aisle wants to admit they were in favor of it.  

    As it is, only 11% of the "cliff" this year comes from the automatic spending cuts, and half of that is to defense.  Overall, the spending cuts in 2013 amount to only 0.4% of GDP.  The tax increases make up most of the cliff.

    And I agree with you that some of the tax increases may actually be helpful.  Even if there's a bit of hit second half of this year,  I think the recovery afterward will be stronger.  

  •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

    The Bush tax cuts have to end. We will never ever have money to invest in America as long as Bush tax rates allow the wealthy to stash their income overseas.

    Defense spending does need to come down, and would have anyway as the war in Afghanistan winds down, but the austerity bomb does push that up a bit.

    I don't believe all the gloom and doom about the fiscal cliff causing an instant recession. It may eventually, but the next Congress could take months to work out a deal, retroactive to Jan 1, and avoid the supposedly inevitiable recesssion.

    I don't expect Republicans to agree to a deal during the lame duck that would be preferable to going off the fiscal bunny slope. Democrats will be in a stronger position in the House and Senate in 2013. Let's wait and make a deal -based on Clinton-era tax rates - then.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:50:49 AM PST

  •  I would say 90% sure we are going over the cliff (0+ / 0-)

    Boehner said he wants to make Obama Care part of any deal to avoid the cliff. No way that Obama will ever let that happen. The republicans know that,hence by putting that in negotiations they don't want a deal. Although the cliff will cause some pain for some good people,it is something that is going to have to happen. The pubbies may cave once their beloved defense gets gutted,but we will see.

  •  Your excellent diary unfortunately buys into (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    the false narrative we're being presented, that the federal debt is the same as private sector debt. The dollar is a fiat currency. There is no limit to the virtual supply of dollars. Even Greenspan and Bernacke, in unguarded moments of honesty, have admitted this. It is what Greenspan TOLD Paul Ryan during a congressional hearing. Ryan obviously didn't listen because he's still spouting the "We're running out of money" nonsense. That's like saying we're running out of points and we're going to have to cut back on sports. It's silly. You should understand that federal spending is never contingent on taxing or borrowing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site