The \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff, we are told, is about the $1.2 trillion reduction in the US deficit scheduled to take effect beginning January 1, 2013, which includes $503 billion in spending cuts and tax hikes in the first year, 2013, and another $682 billion in 2014. Although the matter of what and how much will be reduced on January 1 may be decided in part by the time this article appears in print, the so-called Fiscal Cliff is about more than just deficit reduction, much more.<\/p>\n
The roughly $500 billion scheduled to hit the economy in 2013, according to the official line in the press and the Washington political elite, will have a devastating effect on the US economy and tip its already chronically weak and fragile recovery of the past three and a half years immediately over the precipice into recession in the first quarter 2013. According to the research arm of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a report released this past November 2012, if the schedule cuts in spending and tax hikes are allowed to take place it will reduce US economic output (Gross Domestic Product, GDP) by more than 4% in the first quarter, another 2% drop in the second quarter, April-June 2013, and drive the unemployment rate above 9% again by year end–i.e. an unambiguous double dip recession. Thus the official line is that if the scheduled tax hikes and spending are allowed to take place, the economy will fall off the cliff into recession once again.<\/p>\n
Critics of the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcCliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 <\/p>\n
Some economists have dismissed this claim of approaching economic Armageddon, arguing the Fiscal Cliff is an overblow estimation of a pending economic recession. They note the talk about a cliff represents a convenient manufacturing of a crisis in order to prevent the expiration of the Bush tax cuts of the last decade scheduled for January 1, 2013\u00e2\u20ac\u201dtax cuts that have benefitted mostly wealthy investors and households and corporations. Moreover, the additional purpose of all the cliff talk is to create a favorable political atmosphere to deal a major blow to social security and Medicare. \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNever waste a crisis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, has been the call of radical right wing politicians bent on dismantling Social Security and Medicare programs for years, critics of the Fiscal Cliff point out. And if there isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t a crisis in fact, create one. And if it can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t be created, at least create the false impression it exists.<\/p>\n
There is more than a little truth to these criticisms. The Fiscal Cliff may not represent a cliff at all. Perhaps only a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcledge\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. On the other hand, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s possible to break one\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s leg by simply stepping off a curb. It all depends if you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re not watching where you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re going; or if you are arthritic or otherwise impaired\u00e2\u20ac\u201das is the case of both the US economy and policymakers in Washington DC today. <\/p>\n
What both proponents and critics of Fiscal Cliff alike fail to adequately consider is that even if the entire Fiscal Cliff $1.2 trillion is averted, the US economy is still headed for a further slowing in 2013 and perhaps a recession whether the Fiscal Cliff is hype or real. Well respected independent forecasting services, like the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI), which has accurately called almost every recession for the past several decades, predicted as recently as November 30, 2012 that the US economy is not only headed for recession, it is already underway according to ECRI\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s quantitative index. Even the CBO noted in its November 2012 report \u00e2\u20ac\u0153that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time.\u00e2\u20ac? Fiscal Cliff or not, the US economy remains fragile and continues to stumble along in a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcstop-go\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 trajectory.<\/p>\n
Dimensions of the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/p>\n
So what exactly is meant by the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122? It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s $503 billion that will be \u00e2\u20ac\u02dctaken out of the economy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 commencing January 1, 2013. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u02dccommencing\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, not all at once. Moreover, more than $420 billion of the $503 billion is tax hikes, which represent the Bush tax cuts of the last decade plus the expiration of the payroll tax cuts introduced in 2010 by Obama. The payroll tax is less than a fourth, about $90 billion or so, of the $420 billion total expiring tax cuts. The rest of the $503 billion is spending cuts, mostly unemployment benefits and nondefense spending. Defense spending cuts scheduled to take effect in 2013 amount to only $24 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The $24 billion in 2013 is magnitudes less than the oft-mentioned $500 billion cuts in defense spending reported by the press. That $500 billion represents reductions over a decade to come, and is mostly \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcbackloaded\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to the out years beyond 2013-14. The $500 billion defense cuts is similar to the roughly equivalent $500 billion or so in non-defense spending over the coming decade. Both were mandated in the Budget Control Act passed in August 2011 as part of the debt ceiling deal between Congressional Republicans in the House and Obama. At that time both agreed to $1 trillion in spending cuts, mostly education. A further, delayed $1.2 trillion was agreed in August 2011 to take effect later, this coming January 2013. <\/p>\n
The \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 therefore includes the $1.2 trillion in spending (defense and non-defense) cuts, a proportion of the $1 trillion in all-spending cuts for 2013 agreed to in August 2011, plus the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, payroll tax cuts, and the Alternative Minimum Tax increase. <\/p>\n
But the actual amount that will begin to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchit\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 the US economy in early 2013 is the $503 billion, implemented slowly throughout 2013. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not $503 billion hitting the economy on January 1, 2013. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s less than a $80 billion in spending cuts throughout 2013, or barely one-half of one percent of the US annual $16 trillion annual GDP, plus an added $420 billion in expiring Bush and payroll tax cuts. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a total fiscal cliff of less than 3% of the US more than $16 trillion annual Gross Domestic Product estimated for 2013. And it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s even less than 3% in terms of its actual impact on the US economy as explained below.<\/p>\n
Fiscal Cliff Is Not About Impending Recession<\/p>\n
The Fiscal Cliff debate up to now has assumed that a $1 in tax hikes is the same as a $1 in spending cuts in terms of its effect on the general economy. But that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s pure nonsense from an economic point of view. Tax cuts in general, and business tax cuts in particular, do not produce an economic effect equivalent to government spending. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s true whether one considers fiscal \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcstimulus\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. tax cuts or spending increases\u00e2\u20ac\u201dor whether one is considering fiscal \u00e2\u20ac\u02dccontraction\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. tax hikes and spending cuts. And \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 is a case of the latter contractionary, or negative, impact on the economy. <\/p>\n
To explain this point further, let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s look at what has happened to the US economy since 2008 as a consequence of tax cuts and spending increases that were designed to stimulate the economy (fiscal stimulus), and then apply the same logic in reverse with regard to tax hikes and spending cuts\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. the $503 billion Fiscal Cliff (fiscal contraction).<\/p>\n
First, a dollar of tax cuts does not have the same impact in stimulating the economy as a dollar in spending increase. All things equal, a dollar of government spending boosts the economy more than equivalent tax cutting. And that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not all. What kind of tax cuts and what kind of spending makes an additional difference. Business tax cuts or consumer tax cuts? Government spending on subsidies or spending directly to create jobs? Furthermore, whether the amount and kind of tax or spending occurs in normal economic periods or in the midst of a major recession, such as recently occurred, also matters. Even the type of recession makes a difference\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. whether it was precipitated by a major financial crisis or not. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, politicians and even mainstream liberal economists, fail to account for these important differences determining how much an impact a tax cut and spending increase has on the economy. In economists\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 jargon, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s called the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmultiplier effect\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. They assume the multiplier effect is the same at all times, good economic times and in recessions; that it doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter at what stage of the recession you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re in, how deep it was, how rapidly the economy is declining, or if the recession in question was the result of a financial crash or not. <\/p>\n
But even in good economic times, tax cuts have less an effect on the economy than do spending increases. In not so good times\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. the past four years\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe multiplier for a tax cut is even less. Since 2008 a dollar in business tax cuts in particular doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t even produce a dollarr of stimulus. The business tax multiplier is probably around .35 of a dollar. That means for every dollar of tax cut given to businesses only 35 cents gets invested by business. The rest of the dollar, .65, gets hoarded by business as retained cash, or invested offshore, or in financial derivatives that don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t produce jobs here either, or is paid out to shareholders in extra dividend payments, in stock buybacks, executive pay bonuses, or is used to pay down business debt. In none of those examples of how the remaining 65 cents is invested or hoarded, does it result in investment that creates jobs or in a recovering economy. And that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s what happened the past four years. Despite trillions of dollars in tax cuts\u00e2\u20ac\u201dmostly business and investor tax cuts\u00e2\u20ac\u201dmost of it was hoarded and still is. Corporate America even today is sitting on a minimum of $2 trillion in cash, and probably much more. <\/p>\n
Something similar, though not so dramatic, occurs with regard to government spending stimulus in the worst of times such as the past four years. In good times a spending dollar creates perhaps another second dollar and a half of spending. But that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not the case now. At best, maybe a dollar generates 1.2-1.5 dollars. So government spending the past four years has not had much total impact on economic recovery either. <\/p>\n
The $2 Trillion Failed Fiscal Stimulus of 2008-12 <\/p>\n
The common but na\u00c3\u00afve belief that tax cuts and spending together will produce a significant \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmultiple\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 effect on economic recovery has been refuted by the evidence of the past four years. Mainstream liberal economists argued in early 2009, for example, as Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first economic recovery program was being formulated, that a given amount of tax cut and spending increase would result in a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmultiple\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 effect and a robust, sustained economic recovery within 12-18 months. But that didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t happen. More than $2 trillion in tax cuts and spending produced the weakest recovery from recession since 1947, historically little in the way of business investment, and even less in job creation. Furthermore, of the jobs that have been created since 2009, 58% have been low paid service, part time and temp jobs while most of the jobs lost were higher paid construction, manufacturing and tech jobs. And two thirds of that $2 plus trillion was tax cuts. That is, nearly $1.5 trillion in tax cuts\u00e2\u20ac\u201dmostly business tax cuts\u00e2\u20ac\u201dfailed to stimulate the economy.<\/p>\n
The record of the past four years confirms that tax cuts in general and business tax cuts in particular don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t necessarily create jobs. What it did create was Corporate America\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s now record $2 trillion cash hoard. And that cash hoard is now, at year end 2012, being rapidly distributed to investors, shareholders and Executives in the form, respectively, of special dividend payouts, stock buybacks, and generous year end executive bonuses. <\/p>\n
The claim that Business tax cuts create jobs is one of the great myths sold to the American public during the past half century. Not just under Obama since 2008, but under George W. Bush before, under Clinton, and starting with Reagan in its original form in the 1980s.<\/p>\n
Take the Bush years, 2001-2008. Between 2001-03 Bush pushed through tax cuts for the wealthy and investors totaling more than $2.9 trillion\u00e2\u20ac\u201d80% of which has been estimated to have benefitted the wealthiest 20% households and especially the top 1% wealthiest. In addition, hundreds of billions of dollars more in tax cuts, accelerated depreciation write-offs (a de facto business tax cut), and reductions in the foreign profits tax on corporations were also passed in legislative form for corporations in 2004-05. And what was the economic effect? It took 46 months from 2001 just to return to the level of jobs in the economy that existed when Bush entered office in January 2001 and started pushing his tax cuts. Moreover, most of the jobs created after 2004 were in Housing construction and Finance, two sectors fueled by the speculative boom in subprime mortgages and various financial instruments during those years, which had little if anything to do with Bush\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s $2.9 trillion in tax cuts. In other words, the Bush tax cuts didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t create the jobs promised any more than did Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s business tax cuts did after 2009.<\/p>\n
It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a sad and serious fact that, after more than $4 trillion in Bush and Obama tax cuts from 2001 to 2012, there are no more jobs in the US economy today than there were 12 years ago\u00e2\u20ac\u201deven though the population has risen by more than 20 million. <\/p>\n
From Bush-Obama Tax Cuts to Tax Fiscal Cliff Tax Hikes<\/p>\n
What goes around comes around, as they say. That is, if the Business-Investor tax cuts of the past four years\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand under Bush for another 8 years\u00e2\u20ac\u201ddid NOT produce much in the way of investment, jobs, and economic recovery, then it follows that allowing those same Business-Investor tax cuts to expire come January 1, 2013 won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have much of a negative impact on the economy in 2013. Put another way, if $4 trillion didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t create jobs and economic recovery, then certainly withdrawing $400 billion or so starting 2013 won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t represent a mortal leap from a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcfiscal cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. The tax cuts so generously handed out the past 12 years, 2001-12, mostly to businesses and investors, did not create jobs. So letting them lapse won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t necessary result in further job loss in 2013. In fact, business investment has been steadily declining over the past year, despite $450 billion in Bush tax cuts having been extended for 2011-12. If tax cuts ten times ($4 trillion) didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t produce a robust recovery from recession, then tax hikes one-tenth ($400 billion) won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t result in the opposite, descent into recession.<\/p>\n
A similar parallel point can be made with regard to government spending, though not in the same magnitude. Not all government spending stimulates the economy equally (i.e. not all spending multiplier effects are equal). Like tax cuts, spending effects vary with type of spending, when it occurs in a recession trajectory, and even the type of recession (i.e. financial crash induced or not). <\/p>\n
A major problem with Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s economic recovery programs since 2009 was not only that it was \u00e2\u20ac\u02dctop heavy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 with too much business-investor tax cuts that got hoarded; a parallel problem was that the spending part of Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s fiscal stimulus was composed mostly of subsidies to the states, defense spending, and very long term infrastructure projects. <\/p>\n
The problem with spending subsidies to States is that such spending does not create jobs any more than do business-investor tax cuts, as the record of the past four years also shows. After giving the States $300 billion in 2009, they were supposed to create millions of jobs and help jump-start the recovery. But they didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t create jobs. The $300 billion to the States only delayed layoffs for 12-18 months. Once the subsidies ran out in 2010, the States began laying off by the tens of thousands every month. State and local government spending cuts since 2010 have been a major drag on the US economic recovery. The Obama administration was forced in mid-stream 2010 to change its line and argue the $300 billion in subsidies to the States in 2009 at least \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsaved\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 several million jobs and prevented an even worse recession\u00e2\u20ac\u201da hypothetical claim that can be neither proved nor disproved. <\/p>\n
Nor did defense spending since 2009 create jobs or lead the economy out of recession. Most defense equipment today is high tech, capital intensive, and has relatively little labor content. Today the cost of building one F-35 fighter jet is about equal to producing nearly 1,000 P-51 fighter aircraft in 1945. Moreover, many of the parts for military equipment today are made overseas by US allies. So defense spending from the Afghanistan troop surge under Obama did little to generate recovery either.
\nFinally, like defense spending and subsidy spending to States, long term infrastructure spending by the Obama administration since 2009 also failed to create jobs or have a significant stimulating effect on the economy in the short term. Of the roughly $100 billion allocated for infrastructure spending in 2009, four years later barely half has been spent.<\/p>\n
To sum up, neither business tax cuts nor government spending since 2009 did much to stimulate recovery. And the tax cuts amounted to roughly three times more so than the spending. The multipliers for fiscal stimulus have collapsed, the tax cuts have been mostly hoarded, the subsidies to the States quickly dissipated with little long term effect, defense spending did not translate into jobs or much net economic effect, and infrastructure spending was too little and too long term to make much difference. <\/p>\n
What it all means is that allowing $400 billion–mostly Bush tax cuts for corporations and wealthy investors\u00e2\u20ac\u201dto lapse on January 1, 2013 will have no more negative impact (Fiscal Cliff effect) on the US economy in 2013 than the $4 trillion had in preceding years. Nor will the token $24 billion in scheduled defense spending cuts have any discernible effect. The remaining amounts of the $503 billion \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in 2013\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. the $50 billion or so in other non-defense spending and the $90 billion in payroll tax hikes\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwill have some impact but not all that much in a $16 trillion GDP. The payroll tax cut effect will not be as large as many estimate, in any event. The payroll tax cut introduced in 2011 was roughly $110 billion. But the net effect was only around $70 billion, since it was introduced simultaneously with the elimination of another worker tax cut called the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcMake Work Credit\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, which reduced the payroll tax cut effect by at least $40 billion. <\/p>\n
So what\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s looming in 2013 in the next few months is definitely not a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. At most it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s perhaps a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcTax Cut Ledge\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, given that of the $500 billion scheduled for January 2013 about $420 billion is expiring tax cuts.<\/p>\n
So if the Fiscal Cliff is not about impending economic recession, what then is really behind all the hype? That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s where the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThree Faces of the Fiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 come in. Fiscal Cliff is first and foremost about protecting and expanding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporations; only secondly is it about cutting deficits and debt; and thirdly it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s about taking back the accumulated \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsocial wage\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of tens of millions of American workers that is sometimes called \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcentitlements\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. Social Security benefits and Medicare. The \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcthird face\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of Social Security-Medicare is strategic. It enables the wealthy and their Corporations to realize both the first and second objectives at the same time, which otherwise would not be possible. Keeping the Bush tax cuts and cutting deficits and debt are both not possible\u00e2\u20ac\u201duntil the third is added.<\/p>\n
Fiscal Cliff: Tax Cut First Priority<\/p>\n
As noted previously, the Fiscal Cliff is not about an impending double dip recession in 2013. Whether the economy slips into recession in 2013 will have little to do whether the $503 billion is kept or cut, but will be based on more fundamental forces like declining household real income and therefore consumption; a continued contraction is business investment spending; a continuation of decline in government spending at all levels; whether the European economies slide into a yet deeper recession; and whether global trade continues to contract as China, India, Brazil and other key sectors of the world economy continue to weaken further. Cutting the $503 billion or not cutting it makes little net difference to these much larger, greater forces within the US and global economy.<\/p>\n
That means the Fiscal Cliff is really about something else. To begin with, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s about convincing the public to retain the Bush tax cuts; that if they aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t retained, the consequence is a return to conditions of 2008-09. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s about creating a sense of deep economic insecurity and fear, in order to generate support for the Bush tax cut status quo\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand to justify even more corporate tax cuts in addition later in 2013 when both political parties intend to undertake a total revision of the US tax code. The Fiscal Cliff is therefore primarily about tax cuts. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the $420 billion of the $503 billion. And an accumulated $4.7 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade if continued as before, which is the CBO\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s estimate of the cost of extending the cuts for another decade. As this writer said a year ago, in November 2011 in an article for Znet, when the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcSupercommittee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in Congress at the time decided to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dckick the deficit can down the road\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 for another year: Deficit cutting is all about \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Bush Tax Cuts, Stupid!\u00e2\u20ac?<\/p>\n
The essence, the reality, behind the Fiscal Cliff is really about protecting the income of the wealthiest 1% households, investors, and their corporations by extending\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand even expanding\u00e2\u20ac\u201dtheir income and wealth through manipulation of the tax system.<\/p>\n
Corporate profits today are at record historic levels and continue to rise. The wealthiest 1% households have increased their share of total annual income from 8% in 1980, when all the tax cutting began under Reagan, to more than 24% today. And their share is projected to grow even further. The same top 1% claimed for themselves 45% of all annual income growth during the decade of the 1990s. That rose to 65% between 2001-08 under Bush. And in latest date for 2010, the 1%\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s share of the growth of income was an obscene 93% of all income gains that year. <\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the middle class\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthose with annual household incomes between $39,000 and $118,000\u00e2\u20ac\u201dsaw their share of annual total income fall from 58% in 1983 to 45% in 2011. According to a PEW institute recent survey, the wealth of the median middle class household has also declined precipitously, by 28%, since the late 1990s. And the median male US worker\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s earnings after inflation has not risen since 1975, even though real GDP has doubled since then. The Federal government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tax revenues, as a percent of GDP, has fallen from 20.6% as recently as 2000, to only 15.4% in 2011. Much of that has accrued to the wealthiest 1% and their corporations. The problem with the US economy is, in no small part, a problem of the historic, massive shift in income to the wealthiest 1% households and the corporations that function as the key conduit of shifting income to that 1% from the rest, especially the bottom 80% of households which represent more than 100 million families earning annually less than $118k.<\/p>\n
The cumulative, $4 trillion in Bush-Obama tax cuts not only failed to generate much economic growth in the last 12 years, but have produced a massive income and wealth shift in America never before witnessed in its 236 year history. Allowing the Bush-Obama tax cuts to lapse on January 1, 2013 may have little negative economic effect, but dong so may nonetheless contribute to a much needed rebalancing of income in the US that is undoubtedly choking the economy more than any Bush tax cut expiration would do. Moreover, allowing another $4.7 trillion in Bush tax cut extensions for another decade would require virtually the total destruction of social security and medicare to finance. Which introduces the second \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcface\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and meaning behind the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 hype.<\/p>\n
Fiscal Cliff: Deficit Cutting Via Entitlements<\/p>\n
That Corporate America and the wealthiest 1% see protecting their tax cuts as the number one priority does not mean they do not care about deficit cutting at all. They do. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s just secondary to the primary goal of defending their tax breaks. Wedged between the tax cut priority and the secondary objective of deficit reduction is the third and strategic factor of entitlement social programs like social security, medicare, and closely related programs like Medicaid, etc.
\nCutting entitlements spending is thus the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Link\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 that enables Corporate America and the 1% to get both their primary and secondary objectives (tax cuts and deficits) achieved. In other words, the Fiscal Cliff is also about cutting social wages\u00e2\u20ac\u201dsometimes called entitlements. Making entitlements and social programs pay for the deficits enables the continuation and even expansion of the tax cuts. You can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have the first two\u00e2\u20ac\u201dtax cut retention and deficit reduction\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwithout the third: the piecemeal eventual dismantling of entitlement programs.<\/p>\n
Both Republicans and Democrats increasingly appear to have agreement on this point. Obama has indicated that he has a target of August 1, 2013 in which to address both a major revision of the US tax code plus entitlement spending. For him they are linked, no less so than for House Republicans. <\/p>\n
Whether protecting the income of the wealthy by preventing the expiration of tax cuts on capital incomes, or cutting social entitlements in order to reduce deficits, it is all just \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcausterity\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 by another name. In Europe they call it Austerity for what it in fact is: making workers and consumers pay for the deficits that benefited the wealthy and corporations so that the latter don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have to pay for the same deficits from which they directly benefitted. In America, corporations and politicians are far more clever with manipulating ideological terms. Here, austerity is hidden behind the curtain called \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. But Fiscal Cliff is nothing but \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAusterity American Style\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. Fiscal Cliff and Austerity is about making the middle class, workers and households earning less than $118,000 a year pay for the crisis they did not create, for the stop-go, faltering economic recovery they didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t cause, and for the long term economic stagnation to come they aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t responsible for. <\/p>\n
Fiscal Cliff: Short Term Scenarios and Predictions<\/p>\n
Associated with the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff as impending crisis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 theme is the timeframe perspective that if no resolution is reached by January 1, 2013 the economy will \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcfall off the cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 on January 2. But there are no such deadlines in fact. Congress\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s schedule for legislation means it must receive a bill by December 21, in order to ensure passage by January 1. But neither December 21 nor January 1 are necessarily deadline dates.<\/p>\n
It is likely some \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcagreement in principal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, in part, will be reached before the end of December. Whatever the resolution to the Fiscal Cliff in the end, it will almost certainly come in stages. Any cuts in spending and\/or tax hikes that begin on January 1 can be easily \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcadjusted retroactively\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and thus make up for any fiscal negative effects. All that is required in the interim is the appearance that some kind of agreement is in sight and progress is being made. And as of the end of the first week of December that appears to be the case.<\/p>\n
Despite the rhetoric on both sides, Obama has clearly signaled major concessions, among which are hundreds of billions in entitlement cuts, a clear position he is willing to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 28%, and even an indication he might give up on raising the top personal income tax rate for the wealthiest 2% in exchange for some proof of revenue increase. <\/p>\n
So too does it appear the Republican House leadership is willing to adjust its heretofore hardest positions. Like Obama, House leader Boehner has signaled both a deal is possible this time and that revenue increases might be acceptable so long as the top tax rate on the 2% is not raised. In other words, both sides are very close on the tax hike issue in principal. The revenue increases will be achieved by a combination of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dctax bracket manipulation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and by token reductions in deductions and credits, impacting the top 2% first and in later years extending toward the middle class. Republicans have thrown out a token offer to cut social security benefits by raising the age limit and reducing the cost of living adjustments. But it is likely they will drop that, and return to it later in the year when both sides return for the real \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgrand bargain\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to change the entire tax code in exchange for major entitlement cuts in the second half of 2013. The cuts in the first phase, in early 2013, will focus on some Medicare and Medicaid cost reduction. Medicare benefits will not be cut, but the out of pocket costs for retirees for Parts B and D coverage will be raised, as will the introduction of some kind of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmeans test\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, but limited to the wealthy first as a way to establish a principle that will be extended to the middle class later. Both parties are in agreement already on not significantly reducing defense spending, but allowing token cuts based on attrition and the winding down of the war in Afghanistan which both have already agreed on some time ago. Total spending cuts and tax revenue hikes will likely not exceed $2 trillion over ten years in any final agreement.
\nIn other predictions, the cuts and revenue will not concentrate in the 2013 or even 2014 years, but will be significantly \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcbackloaded\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to 2015 and beyond. The \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmix\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 between revenue and spending cuts will be likely around 5 to 1\u00e2\u20ac\u201dfor every $1 in revenue there will be $5 in spending cuts.<\/p>\n
The parties will have until at least March 27, 2013 to forge such an agreement. That is the date the Federal government runs out of money. And that is the closest to a true deadline data, not January 1 and certainly not December 21. <\/p>\n
Whenever agreement is reached, and it will be, sometime between January 1 and March 27, 2013, it will be only partial in content and magnitude. It will not be the full $3 trillion plus in total deficit reduction over the coming decade (added to the already $1 trillion, for a total of more than $4 trillion\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe amount all parties have agreed upon as the target since 2010). The first phase of an agreement may come before January 1, though not likely. But if so, it will be marginally and mostly in principle. A second phase, from January 1 to March 27, will be larger and more substantive. But the real \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgrand bargain\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 will be left for a third phase later in 2013, as previously note. That will be a truly \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcquid pro quo\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, trading entitlements for major tax code revisions. It is in that major revision that Corporate America will benefit significantly by getting a large reduction in the top corporate tax rate, an understanding on not having to repatriate most offshore subsidiaries\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 profits, and other key corporate tax provisions. But the first-second phases of a deal must come first. The most salient strategic fact about the current negotiations that make them fundamentally different from past deficit cutting deals is that Corporate CEOs are largely aligned with the Obama administration. Their influence will force the Teaparty radicals in the House to conform to House leadership requirements that will follow the corporate lead and recommendations. There will be a deal this time because the political equation has changed. Only 25 votes switching in the House are needed for a deal. Corporate election campaign cash can find at least that number to swing a deal that Obama has offered them: token personal income tax revenue increases now in exchange for major corporate income tax rate reductions later in 2013. And as part of the deal Obama will give House conservatives and Teaparty radicals a big dose of entitlement cuts, especially Medicare and Medicaid.<\/p>\n
In summary, three stages of deals, each larger than the preceding, continuing into 2013. No real deadline for another three months. Cuts in spending and entitlements \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcbackloaded\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to the out years of a ten year agreement of about $4 trillion. Revenue hikes but not tax rate increases on the wealthy, achieved by bracket adjustments and deduction limits on the wealthy, with the precedent established for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153broadening the tax base\u00e2\u20ac? by means of deductions and credit limits later\u00e2\u20ac\u201di.e. a code word for reducing deductions and credits now enjoyed by the middle class after they have been first introduced on the wealthier households. More out of pocket costs for Medicare. Age eligibility, disability eligibility, and cost of living hits to social security retirement benefits. Defense cuts limited to Afghan war \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcdrawdowns\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 that were going to happen anyway by earlier agreement (later perhaps replaced by defense spending increases for a western pacific naval and air buildup).<\/p>\n
But as all this takes place it will become increasingly and abundantly clear that all the hype and talk about a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 was just a cover for what will be the introduction of America\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s version of an Austerity program\u00e2\u20ac\u201da development that began August 2011 with the debt ceiling $1 trillion spending reduction \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcBudget Control Act\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 deal, was supposed to continue last year November 2011 with the Supercommittee but didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t. In an impending election year, the politicians of both parties \u00e2\u20ac\u02dckicked the can down the road\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 until the November 2012 elections were over. Now they have resumed the work, under the cover of a fictitious \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcFiscal Cliff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, of defining, introducing, and implementing the work of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAusterity American Style\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 that was temporarily put off for a year. <\/p>\n
But whatever the shape and form, it will not constitute a further economic stimulus to an economy chronically unable to get on its feet for the past four years and enter a self-sustained recovery. The feeble and ineffective fiscal policies of the past four years are now entering a second phase of retraction and reversal. The first culminated with the $1 trillion debt ceiling deal of August 2011. A hiatus occurred in the 2012 election year. Now an even more aggressive phase two is about to begin in 2013. The outcome, however, cannot represent anything positive for a US economy stumbling along at a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcstop-go\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 pace, which is also increasingly confronted by a slowdown and growing crisis in the global economy.<\/p>\n
Jack Rasmus
\nCopyright December 1, 2012<\/p>\n
Jack is the author of the 2012 book, \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcObama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Economy: Recovery for the Few\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 by Pluto books, and host of the weekly radio show, \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAlternative Visions\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, on the Progressive Radio Network, PRN.FM. His blog is jackrasmus.com and website: www.kyklosproductions.com, where is articles on the fiscal cliff and other economic topics are available. His twitter handle is #drjackrasmus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Jack Rasmus
\n\\’Z\\’ magazine, January 2013, copyright Jack Rasmus
\nIn a 6,000 word feature article, Jack explains the historical signficance of Fiscal Cliff, as the return to \\’Austerity American Style\\’ deficit cutting of 2011 that was temporarily suspended by the 2012 election year. Fiscal Cliff (aka Austerity American Style) represents a retraction of fiscal stimulus of 2009-10 in the US, as central bank monetary policies take the lead in policy. Fiscal Cliff represents the phase in which taxation and incomes of wealthy are protected at the expense of the dismantling of social programs representing \\’deferred wages\\’ (social security & medicare). Income protection for the rich and corporations paid for by (deferred) wage reduction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kyklosproductions.com\/posts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}