What the Name “Taxmageddon” Tells Us About Washington and Fiscal Policy

« Catholic Institutions Sue Government Over Contraception Mandate

The Roundup for May 22, 2012 »

What the Name “Taxmageddon” Tells Us About Washington and Fiscal Policy
By: David Dayen Tuesday May 22, 2012 12:55 pm	Tweet

I think you can learn a lot about how options are artificially shaped and limited in Washington by this lede to a story about the fiscal cliff:

Another line in the sand has been drawn as Congress faces a daunting lame-duck year-end fiscal crisis dubbed around Capitol Hill as “Taxmaggedon.”

OK, so we know that at the end of the year there is are several expiring policies that need to be dealt with. On the tax side, you have the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, and the payroll tax cut, along with the alternative minimum tax patch (something habitually extended every year) and a few other corporate tax breaks. On the spending side, you have the $1.2 trillion trigger cuts to defense and discretionary spending, which are huge for the 2013 fiscal year. The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget acknowledges that these cuts would have a more disruptive impact on economic growth than the expiring tax measures. And they aren’t the only expirations on the spending side. Extended unemployment benefits run out at the end of 2012 as well.

So you put this all together, this mix of tax-side and spending-side expiring measures, and you get the nickname used on Capitol Hill: “Taxmaggedon.” Not “the fiscal cliff,” certainly not “BudgetCutocalypse.” No, all the focus is on those tax cuts. And I guarantee you that the solution will be focused on that as well.

Why, just look at the content of this article. It’s about how Harry Reid sent a letter to Senate Republicans on fiscal policy, particularly this fiscal cliff. In it, Reid doesn’t really question the spending cuts slated for the end of the year; in fact, he vows to carry out “the deficit reduction we enacted.” He hopes that the cuts will force a re-evaluation and a new agreement on a different deficit reduction plan. But really, Reid’s goal is to capture some more revenues. Here’s the key section:

“The American people want a balanced approach to fiscal policy that combines smart spending cuts with revenue measures that ask millionaires and corporations to pay their fair share.”

The only thing on which both parties disagree is the tax part. There’s broad agreement on the cuts.

I would argue that the American people want an economy that enables them to get a job with good wages and benefits, if they want one. That’s what they haven’t been able to get for the last four years, and more beyond that. And it’s simply not the case that a broad deficit reduction strategy, regardless of the mix, matches with the fiscal policy Reid describes here. In fact, the opposite is true: austerity carries deep risks to economic growth in the near term, especially from spending cuts that aren’t really being challenged. As more evidence, the OECD said today that a US recovery would be derailed by the fiscal cliff.

Other than a cookie from DC establishment types, applauding the “wise centrist” path, I don’t really understand what the strategy is here. I know partisan Democrats like to accuse Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the economy, and I don’t think that’s far off. But what about this act of self-sabotage?

1 Comment

One Response to “What the Name “Taxmageddon” Tells Us About Washington and Fiscal Policy”

DWBartoo May 22nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm

David, you are being particularly hard on Obama and the Democrats, today. .

It is simply too bad that the people are NOT getting what they want and need from the two legacy parties … especially given that there are no alternatives. At least none officially worthy of recognition or attention at “mainstream” news sites.

So, when we speak of, or ponder, the problems which we, the people, face, then that lack of alternative ideas or possibilities, that lack of other parties or different “approaches” or understandings of how an economy can and should function, of how a civil society may honestly and equitably govern itself, and protect itself, the appalling lack of all of these things is also a part of the problem, perhaps the very biggest part? Especially for an ostensible democracy.

Ah well, our collective political economy either belongs to us or it does not … and if not, then … well, what then?

Do we seek, actively and intentionally some better way forward, or do we continue doing what the legacy parties want us to do?

Frankly, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the people’s interests or needs at heart, as you daily explain so wonderfully well.

So, do you imagine, David, that certain progressive POLITICAL blogs might, at some point, do what the lamestream media will not?

Or is “that” not politically progressive?

One merely wonders.

Well, to be honest, one also hopes … however forlornly.

I suggest that it is merely a matter of time … Have you any thoughts on this wee, yet important, perhaps even fateful series of questions?

As always, DDay, much appreciation for ALL you do … and for the lot of things which you don’t and won’t do.