They put the band back together. The Gang of Six – now a Gang of Eight, with Lamar Alexander and Michael Bennet added to the roster of Crapo, Coburn, Chambliss, Warner, Durbin and Conrad, met in Virginia yesterday, aiming to create a grand bargain of tax increases, spending cuts and vaguely worded “entitlement reforms” (you can call it cuts, it’s OK) that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.
The impetus this time is the set of expiring measures known in Washington as the fiscal cliff, which if allowed to expire entirely could throw the economy back into recession.
But the word “cliff” does a lot of work here. If there is a drop-dead date, a point of no return where the unwinding of the damage would be too great, then the sense of urgency generated by the Gang of Eight would make more sense. But it actually doesn’t work that way. The economy won’t fall off a cliff, but amble down a slope, in a way that allows for much more deliberative conversation about the best practices for the economy today, not just in the future.
“The slope would likely be relatively modest at first,” Chad Stone, the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group based in Washington, wrote in a recent analysis. “A relatively brief implementation of the tax and spending changes required by current law should cause little short-term damage to the economy as a whole.”
The annual effect of the automatic tax increases and spending cuts would be enormous. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the budget deficit would shrink by more than half a trillion dollars from fiscal years 2012 to 2013 and that the economy would very likely enter another recession [...]
But both Democrats and Republicans have said that going over the fiscal cliff might put them in a better negotiating position. And confidence in policy makers’ ability to get a deal done is low.
In the event that New Year’s Day came and went without a legislative fix, confidence, investment, markets and household spending would be hurt, analysts said. Still, there would be time for Congress to strike a deal before the economy started contracting. The economic effect would accumulate day by day, and much of it might be reversible.
This recognition of reality really cuts the Gang of Eight off at the knees. There is no point of no return for the economy. In fact, while I don’t totally understand the Republican position for letting everything expire, the Democratic position, at least as it relates to the Bush-era tax cuts, makes perfect sense. Republicans will refuse to increase taxes under any circumstances. But if Democrats allow them to rise automatically, they can come back with a series of tax cuts and still raise overall revenue, making the tax system marginally more progressive. And indeed, you would have over a year to restore any tax rates without any disruption. The withholding would be higher in the short term, but that would bounce back with a larger refund the following April. Patching the alternative minimum tax for 2012 is an example of how this would work; right now that has not been patched for the entire year, but as long as it gets done by January, nobody will see any effect.
With Chuck Schumer blowing the whistle on the trap of Bowles-Simpson-type tax reform that lowers the rates and broadens the base, this gives the Gang of Eight even less to talk about.
This is an important concept to internalize. It’s a slope; there’s no big need to fear it, at least if it forces policymakers into an undesirable deal.
Photo by Santheo under Creative Commons license





9 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Just raise the damned standard deduction. This cuts everybody’s tax bill. Then raise rates for the top 10% and let ‘em whine.
The “Fiscal Cliff” is projected to be a gentle dip by everyone who does quantitative projections as opposed to spreading bullshit metaphors.
Hank Paulson ruined it for these scare mongers;
Once you’ve been fucked by the best, no body else gets a second look.
Or;
“Fool me once…”
Orwellian Newspeak is all we get from D.C. and Corporate Media.
There are any number of possible fixes.
Not that OUR legislaturds will utilize any of them. They are doing just fine. They’re benefactors are doing just fine.
Be it a cliff or a slope, we’re headed there for sure.
Some have already gone over the cliff and I’m afraid we are just Lemmings that are way back in the line.
Obama wants austerity for its own sake. Without austerity there can be no “balance,” and without balance, there can be no “grandeur.” And without grandeur, his bargains cannot be “grand.”
Of course it’s not a cliff, it’s just a crock.
The rest of the Dem position
Sure, the Dems refuse to do anything to keep the Dubya tax cuts. Even if we only control the Senate, or just the WH, that works. That’s the no-brainer arm of the strategy.
The next step is to use the leverage gained thereby, the leverage on the Rs created by their eagerness to get some of the upper incme tax cuts back, to get them to agree to repeal of the sequestration law.
Of course they’re not going to go along with that easily. They’re going to try to use the leverage of the D desire to get the Dubya tax cuts for lower income brackets restored to get the Ds to agree to restore all the cuts. But as it’s pointed out, we’ve got all year, no need to rush into any deal on taxes. And during that year the sequestration will stew. Their side doesn’t like a lot of the spending cuts, the voters won’t like any of the cuts, so repeal of the whole sorry business will look more and more attractive as the year wears on.
Yes, the sequestration is more of a cliff. But that’s not a problem. Our side proposes a postponement of the sequestrations going into effect. The other side has to accept as long as our side is clear that this is the only immediate alternative to the cuts going into effect, that our side is not going to cave and allow them to dictate massive cuts and any sort of Grand Bargain sell-out in the short term. They accept because they believe in their ability to outmaneuver us into submission in the long term, but simply cannot face the short-term effects of sequestration. But once they accept the first delay, they’re done — their bluff has been called and their threats to kill the hostage are now completely lacking in credibility, so it’s game over for sequestration. Oh, it may take several more face-saving delays before we get to the outright repeal of sequestration, but that’s fine, we’ve got all the time on the world.