The Politics of the “Fiscal Cliff”

Share to Google Plus

 

Deal or Consquences?

To deal or not to deal. That is the question.

Beyond any policy merits of the various proposals and red lines being bandied about regarding the “fiscal cliff” , there is the cold political calculus, the zero-sum game of who wins and loses in a raw power struggle in the capital.

Right now, it is President Obama who holds the cards and the initiative.

Obama is in the driver’s seat because his central policy priority in the “fiscal cliff” talks – raising income tax rates on the top earners – is tied to expiring legislation. Absent any legislative action, the dreaded tax cuts for the top earners will simply disappear on New Year’s Day – no action required.

Of course, if there’s no deal, all the other tax cuts/extenders expire as well, not to mention the cuts that kick in, spelled out in greater detail here. There will likely be stock market pandemonium, maybe even bleeding into global markets. Europe, for instance, is already in recession. Consumers could be frightened away from the stores during the four most important weeks of the year, and there is a very real possibility of a hit to GDP as a result, with uncertain longer term consequences.

For the White House, however, all that risk and pain may be worth the political benefit.

The terms of the tax debate fundamentally change on January 1, 2013. Instead of “preserving” tax relief, as the current argument is framed, on New Year’s Day and beyond, the new argument will be about providing tax relief to newly burdened citizens.

Having crossed the Rubicon of the “cliff” and endured whatever market/consumer/economic anxiety that was generated from it, there will be enormous pressure in January to fix the problem as soon as possible.

But in this new tax paradigm it is the GOP, not Democrats, who are in the hot seat.

By simply maintaining the President’s stated tax goals, Democrats will position themselves as tax cutters for 98 percent of the American people. If the GOP refuses to move legislation because it does not include tax cuts for the top two percent, Republicans will have not only lost the tax issue to Democrats, they will have certified themselves as the “party of the rich, effectively holding middle class tax relief hostage to new benefits for higher income earners.

It is political hara-kiri.

For the President and Democrats it would be political jujitsu in the service of political payback.

In the summer of 2011, The “Frosh-87” – the newly elected Tea Party Class from 2010 – effectively held the nation’s credit rating hostage for deeper spending cuts as part of the debt ceiling debate. In 2013, the very same lawmakers may make it impossible for Speaker John Boehner to cut a deal to end the crisis, by refusing to pass any legislation that does not include restoring pre January 1st tax rates for everyone.

This puts Boehner and the GOP in an impossible position.

Either he sides with his conservatives and prevents tax relief for a majority of Americans (with real-life and immediate impacts), or the Speaker cobbles together a majority from available Republicans and enthusiastic Democrats to end the crisis by passing the President’s favored bill. But in so doing, Boehner risks his Speakership with a possible revolt among House conservatives. This in turn, creates the real possibility of a public break in GOP ranks in the House, which compounds the problem for Republicans.

Efforts such as trying to depose Boehner as Speaker does nothing to fix the Republican position. Indeed, it would likely double down on disaster.

For instance, if conservatives nominated “one of their own” as Speaker in lieu of Boehner – Eric Cantor immediately comes to mind – the House would become the center of obstruction in the federal government; holding up tax relief for millions, preventing a deficit deal, allowing painful cuts to defense and discretionary programs, perhaps engineeringn a double-dip recession  – impacting most of the day to day lives of average Americans – all in the service of the top two percent.

It would be an unmitigated disaster, depriving the GOP of approval, credibility and standing on other issues of critical importance. And that might be exactly where the President and Democrats want the House GOP to be when the nation must confront the next hurdle on the agenda – raising the debt ceiling in February.

With public fury directed solely at Republicans, it would be unlikely that the House GOP could play the high stakes poker game with the White House that it did in 2011. Indeed, being held responsible for the fiscal cliff, a middle class tax increase and a sovereign credit default in less than 60 days may be more than any political party could withstand.

So, what to do?

If you are John Boehner, you need to get the best deal now on the broadest number of issues, including tax rates, revenue increases, entitlements and the debt ceiling.

While the parties may be far apart on the details, a comprehensive deal works for the White House too. A quick fix takes the biggest issues off the table, removes market/economic uncertainty and paves the road to more robust growth in ’13. It also allows the White House to pivot to other policy priorities.

But make no mistake, as we begin to walk down this road, the President is in the driver’s seat. Indeed, the GOP’s negotiating posture disintegrates the closer we get to 2013, and after that, boils down to hostage-taking.

That is a potent, but rarely successful negotiating stance.

This is all so very disappointing because on the actual merits of the policies being advocated, the GOP – not President Obama and the Democrats – are correct. But the politics just isn’t there to support the plan.

As a result, the GOP will have to cut the best deal that they can.

 As if you needed further evidence, elections do matter, people.

4 Replies to “The Politics of the “Fiscal Cliff””

  1. I would have thought you learned your lessons after being lied to for so long by the GOP. Even when everything I said was right about the Iraq war you said I “was right for the wrong reasons” and even now you continue to swallow their lies.

    This is all so very disappointing because on the actual merits of the policies being advocated, the GOP – not President Obama and the Democrats – are correct.

    Exactly how are more tax cuts the answer? The CBO tried to put out a study that showed lower tax rates on the top 1% don’t stimulate the economy but the GOP blocked that.

    It is quite ridiculous to see all the hand wringning going on because President Obama wants the upper tax bracket to go back to the Clinon rates. But even worse is when seemingly smart people continue to fall for the lies of a party who are far more concerned about Paris Hilton getting her $100,000,000+ inheritance tax free than they are about making sure that your taxes don’t go up by 15%.

    1. First, thanks for visiting my site and taking the time to comment on the post.

      Of course we disagree, and to the extent that it guides our public discourse, it serves no useful end to drop to the gutter and accuse the either political party of intentional deceit.

      I know nothing about a CBO report blocked by the GOP – indeed, the CBO is an independent body and the GOP is not in a position to block its publications, only to criticize them if they do not agree.

      Here are some facts:

      1) according to CBO, the top 20% of American wage earners pay 70% of the income tax in America. The top 1% earn 13% of the income, but pay 22% of the taxes. The bottom 20% of earners payed 3/10ths of 1 percent of taxes. This is not to argue the merits of burden, but to demonstrate existing progressivity.

      2) With the current tax structure in place – including the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for the wealthiest Americans – revenues to the US Treasury have increased to a point just shy of of total revenue collection for 2007 – the highest revenues ever recorded. That happened despite the lackluster economy, which officially came out of recession in June 2009. The budget deficit is at historic highs because since 2007, baseline spending has increased by $800 billion.

      3) Higher tax rates do not translate into higher tax revenues.

      First, I look across the ocean to Britain.

      Before the end of the Labour government in 2010, Gordon Brown’s administration increased the marginal tax rate for England’s top earners from 40% to 50%. In Britain, that translates to anyone who make more than $238,000 per year, or very close to President Obama’s favorite target, couples who earn more than $250k. After a full year of tax collections, the results of that tax increase should be disheartening to progressives and tax-raisers everywhere. At the new 50% level, the British government collected $806 million less than at the previous 40% rate

      And that Clinton tax increase you are so fond of? According to data from the Treasury Department, in the two years after the 1993 tax increase, with no recession, tax revenue increases to the Treasury actually declined as a percentage, year over year. From 8% in 1993-94 to 7% in 1994-95, to 1% in 1995-96. The budget only came into balance after the GOP took control of Congress, slowing the rate of spending to less than 1% per year, and Clinton agreed to cut capital gains taxes, which created a gusher in revenues. The Clinton tax increase did not balance the budget and is not an elixir for our current troubles.

      These are the facts.

      Both parties are going to have to grapple with revenues and spending as the Boomers retire and the Social Security/Medicare rolls increase dramatically over the next two decades. But is is simple fact that if you taxed the richest Americans at 100%, and if somehow you were able to capture that, the funds would not cover the deficit. No solution that does not include spending restraint and factor in incentives for genuine economic growth – that create revenues to the government – can solve the problem.

  2. By the way, your post on an Obama mandate needs to be updated. Bush received 62,040,610 votes in 2004. With votes still outstanding in the country President Obama has 64,788,576. He also got 332 electoral votes compared to President Bush’s 286.

    Add in that in the other “national” election, Republicans won 55 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives – running on the GOP platform of government reform, deficit reduction and pro-growth tax policy, and it becomes structurally clear that no united verdict was delivered on Tuesday.

    But received 500,000 fewer votes.

    Sorry to rain on your parade.

    1. Thank you for visiting the site and for commenting on the post.

      Yes, you are correct. I use David Leip’s Almanic of American Politics as my source on the statistics for the election, and they have been updated since my original post. The results remain unofficial, and I will make corrections when all the results are in.

      But even as the counting continues, one fact will not change. Barack Obama is the first President in 180 years to get fewer votes – popular AND electoral – in re-election than in his first victory. As winning re-elections confirm the policies and leadership of the first term, the President’s loss of support is striking.

      President Obama won the election. He did not win a mandate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

301 Moved Permanently

Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.