I noted the emerging fiscal slope deal yesterday, and we have additional developments on that front.
The headlines here is that the Obama Administration narrowed the demand they maintained for four years, for tax rates to increase above $250,000, and they would agree to a benefit cut for Social Security and $400 billion in unspecified Medicare cuts, and in exchange they would mostly extend current law on a few fronts (but not all) and get an unspecified amount, no more than $50 billion, in infrastructure spending.
Also we’d all be back here in two years with a third debt limit showdown in 2014.
The New York Times has probably the best pure rundown of what the President offered. Let’s bullet-point:
• Taxes. “The White House plan would permanently extend Bush-era tax cuts on household incomes below $400,000, meaning that only the top tax bracket, 35 percent, would increase to 39.6 percent. The current cutoff between the top rate and the next highest rate, 33 percent, is $388,350.” This would raise somewhat less than the $800 billion envisioned by allowing the top two tax rates to rise. However, the White House’s revenue offer stands at $1.2 trillion, above that $800 billion number. Where’s the rest coming from? According to Jared Bernstein, the top capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20% above $250,000 in income, and there would be some deduction cap, similar to the 28% rate on deductions above $250,000 that Obama has put in nearly every one of his budgets. But the details there are unclear.
• Spending. “The White House says the president’s plan would cut spending by $1.22 trillion over 10 years, compared with $1.2 trillion in cuts from the Republicans’ initial offer. Of that, $800 billion is cuts to programs, and $122 billion comes from adopting a new measure of inflation that slows the growth of government benefits, especially Social Security. The White House is also counting on $290 billion in savings from lower interest costs on a reduced national debt … Of the $800 billion in straight cuts, the president said half would come from federal health care programs; $200 billion from other so-called mandatory programs, like farm price supports, not subject to Congress’s annual spending bills; $100 billion from military spending; and $100 billion from domestic programs under Congress’s annual discretion.”
So you have chained CPI, a benefit cut to Social Security in a time when the program is not adequate enough to prevent 15.1% of all seniors from falling into poverty (I’ll cover this more in a subsequent post). Then you ADD TO THAT $400 billion in health care program cuts. The President’s previous offer has $400 billion in health care savings that did not affect beneficiaries, but these cuts are unspecified. On top of that, this only prevents 80% of the sequester from taking effect. If $100 billion in cuts to discretionary spending and $100 billion to defense remain, that’s 20% of the current sequester. And there’s $200 billion extra in mandatory cuts.
We don’t know how that plays out in terms of back-loading, but it approaches a $100 billion cut, if not more, in 2013. And you can add to that:
• Expiring programs. “And Mr. Obama is sticking by his request for additional upfront spending on infrastructure and an extension of expiring unemployment benefits … He would also secure some tax and policy changes long sought by both parties but unattainable in the context of smaller budget deals. His proposal would permanently extend popular business tax breaks like the credit for corporate research and development, permanently stop the expansion of the alternative minimum tax so it does not affect more of the middle class, and stop a long-planned and deep cut to Medicare health providers, which Congress has never had the stomach to allow to kick in.” What’s missing there is the payroll tax cut, which will almost certainly be allowed to expire. That’s another $125 billion in austerity for 2013, for a total of $225 billion in spending cuts and as much as $100 billion in taxes. The fiscal slope contemplated $500-$600 billion in fiscal snap-back in 2013; this deal appears to include HALF OF THAT FISCAL CUTBACK.
But wait! There’s the stimulus mentioned in the previous piece. Upfront spending on infrastructure, along with an extension of expiring unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are no more than $30 billion now, since they’ve been whittled from 99 to 73 weeks at most (it’s rather shocking to consider unemployment benefits “stimulus,” rather than what you do when there’s high unemployment). The infrastructure spending is undefined, but maybe you get $50 billion out of it, tops. I seriously doubt it, since that was the Administration’s initial offer. So maybe you get $80 billion (probably more like $60 billion) in stimulus to offset as much as $325 billion in austerity. That’s not going to do the job.
Then there’s the…
• Process. “To make all this happen, Mr. Obama proposed fast-track procedures to help Congressional tax writers overhaul the individual and corporate tax code and make changes to other programs.” In other words, Congress would have to run with the details here, including filling in the targeted spending cuts, and complete individual and corporate tax reform. Have you seen Congress work lately? Think they’re up to this task? No? Then you’re probably wondering how this deficit reduction will get secured. Wonder no more! You’ll have ANOTHER SEQUESTER, something that would automatically kick in if Congress failed to get a deal in a prescribed time.
One final thing:
• Debt limit: “To keep the country from returning to fiscal showdowns, Mr. Obama wants the government’s borrowing limit to rise high enough to take the issue off the table for two years, although he said that Congress could periodically weigh in and try to override a presidential lifting of the debt ceiling, should it want to.” That doesn’t come close to a permanent solution to debt limit weaponization. Under this deal, the deficit would close in 2013 and 2014, so you’re talking about probably a $1.6 trillion debt limit increase, or something in that neighborhood. And in two years, the gang gets back together – at least everyone left in Congress – to do this all over again. Nobody expects Democrats to carry the House and 60 votes in the Senate, so Republicans can work their leverage again.
From where I’m standing, this is a deal for the President to break his promise on tax rates, allow half of the fiscal slope to go forward, probably cut as much as 2% from GDP in 2013, and enact permanent benefit cuts to Social Security (and other government benefits) as well as unspecified cuts to health care programs, in exchange for…
- a routine extension of unemployment insurance;
- no more than $50 billion in infrastructure, probably less;
- a permanent extension of things Congress does annually like clockwork (making them permanent is good public policy, but doesn’t functionally change much);
- the chance to do this again in two years.
Meanwhile, Republicans give up tax rates that were going up anyway, an unemployment extension that they have yet to fail to pass, and a bit of infrastructure. That’s it, in exchange for cuts that will put discretionary spending well below traditional levels, cut Social Security benefits and basically ensure smaller government through caps and cuts.
Sound good?





42 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
No.
Glad Obama got elected instead of Romney because we will have longer before we get knifed in the back.
Once again, he should have just allowed the sequester. Instead, he’s bargaining from a position of weakness. Which seems to be his style.
He’s such a pompous ass. He really doesn’t care who he hurts as long as he succeeds in negotiating a deal.
Man, does our courageous prez know how to drive a hard bargain or what?
It’s enough to make you sympathize with John Boehner and the republicans, to suffer such a beat-down.
Straight up, it’s this kind of sellout that guarantees americans will have no faith nor belief that the economy is turning around. At least, not enough to help most of us.
Obama: grabbing his ankles for the corporatists at every opportunity.
The title is misleading – it seems to be saying Obama is saying he is missing the part where Republicans give up something.
It’s not weakness, he’s just doing what he said he was going to do gut Main Street in the name of his hero ronnie-ray-gunn. I dod cuts are 0 what a suprise war on the little people on the plant for ever.
Thanks DD and I think I’ll need a bigger garden in 13.
I have never been so disappointed to be right.
One must admire his timing. As the editorial pages and blogs are overflowing with the gun control frenzy, he rolls out this steaming pile of pooh.
So now I must implore my tbagger Congressman and Senators to “Just Say No”. When did I move to bizarro world?
Hitzlik from the LATimes has a piece on the SS benefits giveaway.
But it’s the worst half! Different portions of the fiscal-cliff package have different (Zandi) multipliers:
* Letting the Bush tax cuts expire cuts the deficit by $220 billion but cuts the GDP by only $64 billion, since its multiplier is .29.
* Letting the payroll-tax holiday expire cuts the deficit by $120 billion and cuts the GDP by $155 billion, since its multiplier is 1.29. Note that letting it expire hurts the working class (only).
Obama is being evil.
As Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report noted, O is the “more effective evil.”
That’s quite an editorial. Here’s some information that doesn’t have “sacrificing grannies” in the title.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_5
One notes the roaring silence of the Obama-boosters, so it must be assumed that they are “good” with Obama’s actions and the consequences that those actions will cause.
While the loud-mouthed boosters are making loud and continuing noise about how stupid the Republicans and those who support the republicans are, there seems no grasp evidenced on the part of the boosters that, “this is not a democracy it is a business”, policies of the Democrats are successfully more effectively destructive …
Our only happy solace, as Popeye comments, is that, with Obama in charge, it is a s-l-o-w motion descent … which we have the pleasure of currently experiencing … or so have been exhorted, when that was expedient, to “believe”.
Ah, well … thank you, DDay, for sharing the truth with us. You shall be missed.
DW
Tell me again, why is social security is even in the discussion? It is self funded and by law cannot add to the deficit!!
Chaining the CPI is just another painful and unwarranted cut to social security.
Regarding the payroll tax “holiday”, I have never believed that this was done for the benefit of workers. Although, take home pay rises, it is a ticking time bomb that does place social security directly in the line of fire. When I look at it, I would rather take home 2% less now, then 2-100% less home, when retired.
Time for Washington to take its’ nose out of the ledger! They base all decisions on $$$$, none on people. I don’t care how they parse the numbers, without people in the equation, their “solutions” will continue to bring pain to many and profit to few.
from Hitzlik, who is more honest about his agenda than you are:
Here are the three lies about the chained CPI that have facilitated the ripoff.
1. It’s a more accurate way of measuring inflation than the CPI. This is untrue as it applied to the elderly, whose cost of living tends to rise faster than the traditional CPI. That’s because more of their expenses are tied to healthcare, which has shown a higher rate of inflation that the traditional market basket of goods and services.
2. It accurately reflects people’s tendency to buy cheaper versions of goods when the brand names rise in price. Untrue for everybody. The traditional CPI already includes this adjustment, which occurs when you shift from Kellogg’s corn flakes to the Vons no-name label. The chained CPI reflects a more stringent substitution — more like that when the price of gas goes up, you spend less onfood altogether. Seniors on fixed incomes can’t easily make those substitutions.
3. We need to cut Social Security to cut the deficit. Biggest lie of all. Social Security does not contribute one penny to the federal budget deficit. It can’t, bylaw, and it doesn’t today — it’s running a surplus.
Obama has paid 0% interest on Social Security borrowings over the last few years thanks to his Treasury pick.
I don’t know what either of them are thinking, leaving aside Obama needlessly cutting Social Security (typical), why is Boehner putting his guys on the hook for voting on a tax increase? If he just waits till January, his anti-tax brigade will be defeated yet blameless by the fiscal cliff (like a soldier who only lays down his arms when his country surrenders). Instead, Boehner is putting his caucus on the hook for cutting deals with Obama AND raising taxes AND breaking their no new taxes pledge (like a soldier who deserts to the enemy and shares secrets and snitches other POWs). Its like he’s tired of his caucus and wants them all replaced in the next primaries.
Look on the bright side, this deal makes it as easy for Dean Baker and Jane to lobby progressive Democrats against cutting Social Security as it is for Grover Norquist to lobby Republicans against raising taxes. The message is the same: If you don’t stand up for a core party value, good luck in your next primary. If only someone would reach out to Grover… :o)
http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/why-i-reached-out-to-grover-norquist-on-fanniefreddie/
I thought Obama was going to turn into FDR. NO, wait it’s now Lincoln.
Yea he has such a stellar record of helping out the middle class over Wall Street.
What the hell did you expect? Too bad you can’t vote for him again. I’m sure he would be more attuned to the middle class then.
SHEEP!
They won’t have another chance to really make a difference. Obamas legacy is at stake here as much or more than it ever was. I agree with Beowulf. Why would either one of them make a deal on taxes.? Just let them expire. I don’t get the need to rush in to cut social security. I must be missing something. Surely they are both brighter than this.
I don’t disagree with those three points. The hysteria with which he delivers the rest of the article makes it seem less believable.
Obama may have paid 0% interest, but 14 percent of OASDI Trust Fund income in 2011 came from interest earned on investment of OASDI Trust Fund reserves. That’s $106.5B.
“Carried Interest” tax loophole for Private Equity Managers … Maintained
Cost of Living Increase for Seniors and the Disabled … Cut
Washington is out of touch with the rest of America.
That’s why he won. We only have illusory choices until the upper middle class finally gets kicked in the ass financially. Austerity and the Greater Depression are on the way.
No, the reason he won is that people voted for him. If the people who had voted for him, while deriding him, had voted for someone else, say Jill Stein, either Stein would have won or Romney would have won and Democrats would have opposed Romney.
Anyone who voted for Obama is getting exactly what he or she voted for because he promised “reform” of “entitlements?” way back in January 2009 and never retracted that pledge. So fuck him and fuck each of them. They will have, perhaps not blood on their hands, but deaths and illnesses of the elderly and disabled poor, along with the widows and orphans.
And reduced payroll taxes, which makes Social Security vulnerable.
Inasmuch as Democrats had ALL the leverage in this “negotiation,” it stands to reason that the only way Obama could accomplish his goal of cutting “entitlements” was to bid against himself.
He is a Trojan horse. So is every other DLC, New Democrat, Third Way, No Labels traitor. (Only cheap crooks use that many aliases.)
Face it, the Democratic Party has turned into a herd of Trojan horses.
How’s that “lesser of two evils” thing workin’ out for ya?
http://youtu.be/OJYZ2AbOR-8
I think I kinda know how Gen Custer musta felt at Little Big Horn when he said to his scouts, “Doesn’t ANYBODY have any GOOD news???
I think more like the “south end of a northbound horse” Trojan or otherwise.
This shouldn’t come as a shock to anybody, and I don’t believe it does.
Hold on there Batman…. How did they sneak in another lowering of the Revenue number without ever getting even one concession yet from the R’s? Revenue started at 1.6 trillion. Then Obama lowered it to 1.4 in his second offer. Now I see you report it here as 1.2 trillion. And, still nothing from the R’s.
If Boehner waits long enough, Obama will end up offering another tax-cut instead of demanding any revenue.
The Rs that I speak with claim to me that Soc Sec effects the deficit and debt because the government has to borrow money from China in order to pay back the money it owes to Soc Security because of the fact that Soc Sec is not currently bringing in enough revenue to pay its current obligations. They want cuts to Soc Sec so that current revenues will be able to fund current obligations and then the govt will NEVER have to pay back the old Soc Sec surpluses that they borrowed.
The money that was borrowed was spent on wars, the Bush era prescription drug program, the Bush/Obama tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy, and the financial crisis. So the people and corporations that became wealthier as a result of that spending should be the ones to pay back the money.
C’mon, people, be reasonable. And be grateful we elected the Lesser of Two Zombie-Eyed Granny-Starvers. She’s gotta go sometime, amirite?
The R’s you speak with are … … disinformed.
Bizarro indeed. I almost wish I lived in a red state. I could call my Senators here in WA, and maybe one of them will make some mouth-sounds about Social Security, but I’m sure neither of them will filibuster this platter of turds.
I realized that. I don’t agree with them…. but, that is their position.
It is my position that had the government NOT borrowed the soc sec surpluses and paid some sort of interest on it those same Rs would have complained that the money was just sitting there idle and not earning anything…..
i’ve never figured out why Obama is even talking to Boehner. Boehner should be negotiating the whole thing with Harry Reid and the Senate Dem leadership.
it’s a totally bizarre arrangement. i spent my career in the business world negotiating deals, and one of the first things you learned was you negotiated only with people who could make the decision. You don’t lay all your cards on the table only to hear the other side say “well, i’ll take your best offer back to my crazy group of co-workers and see what they think about this, then we’ll get back to you.”
behind closed doors, Boehner has got to be laughing his ass off at this totally backwards framework for negotiating important stuff. I actually look forward to reading Boehner’s memoir, it’s got to read like a fucking comedy masterpiece.
the kid from Harvard is once again being taken to the cleaners by the kid from the neighborhood bar
it’s a totally bizarre arrangement. i spent my career in the business world negotiating deals, and one of the first things you learned was you negotiated only with people who could make the decision.
Ha ha, I had this same conversation with another lawyer after work today. Ibama just a horrible negotiator. But even if he James A Baker-style master dealmaker (which he probably thinks he is), its dumb for him to be negotiating directly instead of through intermediaries; that way if Boehner proposes something to, say, Harry Reid, then Reid has the “got to check with my wife” excuse since he’d have to consult with the White House.
More importantly, it would allow Reid to play good cop trying to keep bad cop (and distant) Obama from beating up the deal and leaving it for dead. Obama is learning (or should be learning) its impossible to play good cop and bad cop by yourself; Boehner’s advantage is that his genuinely crazy caucus is a most believable bad cop.
And just think, all Obama has to do to shut the Republicans down; but not to shut ‘em up, is to mint a $60 T Proof Platinum Coin and deposit it at the Fed. That would take the debt ceiling off the table for a very long time; and also would make clear to the public that there’s no reason for any “fiscal Cliff.”
It is not a position of weakness. He is proposing what he exactly wants, using Repubs as cover.
Looks like the repubs were right….he can’t be trusted.