Washington,
Jan 10 : In the controversy surrounding the "fiscal cliff" issue, it's
easy to forget that the origin of the entire debate was a professed desire to
reduce swollen federal deficits.
Whether the target was $4 trillion over
10 years, as proposed by the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission, or in
the $2 trillion range, as tossed around by House of Representatives Speaker John
Boehner and President Barack Obama, the idea was to rein in total debt that now
tops $16 trillion.
By those standards, the bill passed by the U.S. Senate
early on New Year's Day to avoid the cliff's automatic steep tax hikes and
across-the-board spending cuts, looks paltry indeed.
The legislation,
which had yet to be passed by the House, would add nearly $4 trillion to federal
deficits over a decade compared to the debt reduction envisioned in the extreme
scenario of the cliff, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office.
This is largely because it extends low income tax rates for
nearly every American except the relative handful above the $400,000
threshold.
It's also because it put off for at least two months the
automatic budget cuts that were part of the cliff and would have saved about
$109 billion in federal spending on defense and non-defense programs
alike.
The Senate bill, which ultimately came down to a fight about tax
equity rather than federal spending, did to deficit reduction what Obama and
congressional leaders always promise to resist: It "kicked the can down the
road" to a later date.
In explaining the measure to the news media, the
White House, which helped broker it, gave no particular figure for how much it
would bring down the deficit, stating only that, somehow, "with a strengthening
economy," it would.
Whether it ultimately succeeds will depend in part on
what happens to the now-delayed "automatic" spending cuts, including whether
Obama follows through on reductions in outlays.
The Senate bill also sets
up what is likely to be an even more heated fight in late February when the
Treasury Department must come to Congress to seek an increase in the
government's borrowing limit.
That will bring everything full circle to
where the cliff originated during a struggle between Obama and Republicans over
raising the federal debt ceiling above $14.5 trillion.
That struggle
ended in August, 2011 with a bipartisan deal designed to scare Congress into
legislating significant long-term cuts in federal spending.
The idea was
that by setting a strict deadline of January 2, 2013 and dire consequences in
the form of draconian spending cuts for failing to meet it, the White House and
Congress would be forced into action.
Republican Representative Paul
Ryan, a self-described deficit hawk who served as the Republican
vice-presidential candidate, declared the moment a "huge cultural
change."
Coincidentally, low tax rates that originated during the
administration of President George W. Bush were also set to expire on December
31, making the prospect of inaction so threatening that the Congressional Budget
Office determined that failure to intervene could cause a new
recession.
But the controversy over taxes, coming on the heels of a
presidential campaign built around Obama's demand for middle-class tax justice,
ultimately consumed the argument over the cliff, leaving deficit reduction as
the forgotten issue.
Among those disappointed by the process was Alice
Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar, former U.S. budget director and
co-author of another widely discussed deficit reduction plan named for herself
and former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico.
"I'd
been optimistic," Rivlin said in an interview. "I thought that we might get
might get it done" and that Boehner and Obama "might get to a grand
bargain."
Maya MacGuineas, a budget hawk who has led a group of corporate
chieftains in a group called "Fix the Debt," was also unenthusiastic about the
bill.
"This is one of the lowest common denominator deals," MacGuineas
said. "I wish I had something nice to say, but not so
much."
Ends
SA/EN
Home »
» Analysis: "Fiscal cliff" deal called a dud on deficit front
Analysis: "Fiscal cliff" deal called a dud on deficit front
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment