The Fiscal Cliff Explained

US President Barack Obama meets for budget tal...

It’s the phrase that will be dominating the airwaves in the days and months to come as the pundits and prognosticators leave the 2012 election behind and turn their attention to dire predictions of economic collapse should the government allow us to tumble over “the fiscal cliff.”

So, exactly what is the fiscal cliff and why is everyone so worried about it?

At its core, this economic event destined to dominate our lives for the foreseeable future is an accident of timing resulting in a one-two punch.

Think of it as the economic version of Hurricane Sandy that ripped through the northeast in the past few weeks. On its own, the hurricane could cause a lot of damage. However, when two additional weather fronts—that just happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time—combined with the hurricane, Sandy became an exponentially devastating storm, causing loss of life and billions upon billions in property losses.

One hopes that nobody will die as a result of the fiscal cliff. However, it is very serious, indeed.

If economists are correct, the failure to resolve this problem could send the U.S. economy into a severe contraction as money is sucked out of our pockets due to a rise in the tax payments that will be required of the average American family at the very same time less money will be flowing into our pockets due to dramatic cuts in government spending.

It begins with the December 31, 2012 expiration of the Bush tax cuts. These were originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010 but were extended two years ago in a horse trade between President Obama and the GOP controlled Congress. You may recall the December deal, following on the heels of the Republican wave election victory of 2010, wherein President Obama agreed to continue the tax cuts for all Americans in exchange for Congress agreeing to extend long-term unemployment benefits for the many Americans who were out of work.

Should the Bush tax cuts now be permitted to expire, taxes will go up for most Americans—an increase that would extend to the taxes we pay on our earnings, investments and inheritance along with the removal of a number of tax incentives that have been made available to businesses for things such as research and development.

But the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is just the beginning.

The temporary, two percent reduction in payroll taxes that the Obama administration pushed through so that consumers could have a few more dollars to spend is also scheduled to end on December 31 of this year along with the long term unemployment benefit extension mentioned above.

Adding to the misery is the reality that, beginning on January 1, some 26 million households will again become subject to the alternative minimum tax which is estimated to raise taxes for many Americans by as much as $3,700.

When it is all said and done, the expectation is that the average American household will be paying $2,000 to $3,000 more in taxes each year—leaving them with $2,000 to $3,000 less to spend in our consumer driven economy.

Not a good thing as we struggle to get the economy on a more solid footing.

But we’ve only just gotten started.

While the expiration of all these laws that have provided Americans a measure of tax relief dating back to 2001 will deliver the ‘set up’ punch, the ‘closer’ comes from the sudden and immediate reduction in government spending that hits on January 1—courtesy of the failure of the White House and the Congressional GOP to reach a more reasonable agreement in 2011 to resolve the debt ceiling crisis.

This is the ‘sequester’ you’ve heard so much about.

The cuts hit all areas of the federal budget, including a $55 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s budget in 2013, a reduction of payments to physicians participating in Medicare, substantial cuts to FEMA and the Dept. of Education budget along with a host of serious reductions across the wide ranging operations of the federal government.

What’s more, few players on either side of the political aisle actually like these large budget cuts.

While many welcome spending cuts that will begin to deal with our dangerously high national deficit, the speed and immediacy of these cuts—coming at a time when the economy remains in a precarious position made all the more complicated by the scheduled rise in the tax obligations discussed above—could have a very negative impact on the economy.

Bear in mind that Congress passed the sequester never really intending it to go into effect. The idea had been to create legislation that would produce spending cuts  so distasteful to both sides of the aisle that its mere existence would force everyone involved to come up with a more acceptable deal in order to allow the debt ceiling to rise.

As you will remember, that deal was never achievable, leaving us to face these draconian reductions that hit in January.

When you add up the increased payment of taxes and the cuts in government spending, we are looking at taking somewhere around $800 billion out of the U.S. economy next year—producing the potential for devastating consequences.

So, are we all just toast or is there something that can be done?

Certainly, the fiscal cliff can be avoided.

It simply involves Congress and the White House coming to terms on a deal that will extend the Bush tax cuts for some or for all—along with the possibility of also extending some additional items of tax relief such as the 2 percent payroll tax cuts—for an additional period of time so as to avoid an economic catastrophe resulting from Americans having less money to spend. At the same time, the parties would need to work out an agreement on how to lower our deficit without throwing the economy into a tailspin by abruptly removing too much of the large amounts of money the government spends in our economy each and every year, money that comprises a significant contribution to our GDP.

Of course, it is not really so simple at all given that our political parties disagree on how this should all be done.

President Obama has drawn what appears to be a strong line in the sand, insisting that the Bush tax cuts be extended for everyone except those who earn more than $250,000 a year.

The President believes that the additional money that would flow into the government from the highest earners via slightly higher taxes would allow government to proceed with its plans to cut the deficit without having to go forward with all of the intense and immediate cuts to government services and programs scheduled to take place in 2013. There would still be cuts to the government budget, however, with the increased revenue coming in from the nation’s highest earners, the cuts would not be quite so severe as they would be spread out over a longer period of time, thereby having less of an impact on the total economy.

When you couple a less painful reduction in government spending with Obama’s plan to leave the overwhelming majority of Americans untouched by any tax increases, he believes we can accomplish the goal of starting the process of reducing our deficit without throwing the nation into an economic tailspin.

The Congressional Republicans are insistent that the tax cuts be extended to all Americans, including the highest earners. At the same time, they argue that some new taxes set to go into effect, most particularly some taxes created by the Affordable Care Act, should be repealed in the belief that that these new taxes will put a further strain on business and, therefore, the economy.

The Congressional GOP would also like to see the cuts to the government budget remain significant—however they do not like where some of the cuts being made, most particularly, the cuts to the defense budget. Were the GOP to have its way, the cuts would extend far more into government entitlement programs rather than being placed on the defense side of the spending equation.

Republicans additionally argue that forcing our highest earners —the people Republicans like to call ‘job creators’—to pay more in taxes will have a detrimental impact on business—particularly small business—and that will result in fewer jobs at a time when job creation is priority number one.

These issues are where the battle lines have been drawn.

Clearly, compromise is required if we are to avoid tumbling over the edge of this fiscal cliff. The problem is that the word compromise, once a ten-letter word, has become a four-letter word among many of the more extreme Republicans who have entered the House of Representatives and the Senate over the past few elections. And, to be fair, Democrats are rarely in a compromising mood when it comes to cuts to entitlement programs.

The end result is that our dysfunctional government is about to face one of its most significant tests.

Failure to work towards a compromise will leave every American exposed to the dangers of a reversal in the economy at a time when it appears to finally be getting its legs underneath itself.

But compromise will only come if Americans insist on intelligent, reasonable behavior on the part of our elected officials—behavior that has been sadly missing largely because so much of the American public has given up on the time honored benefits of meeting in the middle.

In recent years, too many Americans have been unwilling to acknowledge that well-intentioned people of different political ideologies have the right to contribute to the discussion, instead believing that a  “my way or the highway” approach is the way to go. Well, we are now coming to the end of that highway and Americans have a choice.

If we open our ears and minds to what our political opponents have to say and recognize that this is their country too, we can create an environment where the politicians will have no choice but to do the same. Remember, if the politicians go down in a blaze of political posturing and spiteful recrimination, they are taking us down with them.

The good news is that you have more to say about this than you think. You and I send these people to Washington and you and I can bring them right back home again if they don’t pay attention.

So let your elected representatives know you are watching. Send them emails encouraging them to be open to compromise. Let them know that you are paying attention and that you do not intend to be forgiving if these boneheads blow up our economy because they cannot behave like grown-ups.

Remember that, despite your own strongly held beliefs and principles, when government properly performs its role, nobody gets everything they want and nobody loses everything they want. And if you find that idea troublesome, try to keep in mind that this is precisely how America became great.

Do that, and this will all have a much happier ending for all Americans.

contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com and follow me on Twitter @rickungar


COURTESY OF YOUR NUMBER ONE ARCADIA REAL ESTATE AGENT

Electoral College 101: How it works. Why we’re stuck with it.

Why is 270 the magic number on Election Day? Because it’s the number of Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency. A look at the messy system the Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

By Peter Grier, Staff Writer / November 6, 2012

Fifth-grade student Therese McCarthy holds a sign representing Pennsylvania during a mock Electoral College lesson at the Erie Day School in Erie, Pa., on Nov. 2. McCarthy and her classmates mailed polling ballot notecards to students in 200 schools across the country to be used as data for the Electoral College program in advance of the 2012 presidential election. This year, Obama “won” in her class’s polling with 417 delegates to Romney’s 121.

Andy Colwell/Erie Times-News/AP

WASHINGTON

The Electoral College: It’s much more than a boring vestige of 18th century political theory. It’s also the process by which US presidents are actually chosen, and a creaky machine that’s driven voters batty for over 200 years.

Peter GrierWashington Editor

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor’s Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation’s capital.

But it’s in the US Constitution (Article II, Section I) and it’s not going away anytime soon.

So here’s what you need to know about it to pass your Decoder 101 final exam:

Think you know your US presidents? See if D.C. Decoder can stump you!

• Point one is that under the Electoral College you don’t vote directly for your favored presidential candidate. You may think that you do, and that’s what the line on your ballot may say, but what you’re really voting for is a slate of state electors who say they also support the nominee in question.

If “Dancing with the Stars” worked this way, you wouldn’t vote directly for a couple, but for judges who’d already indicated they favored your choice. These judges would then travel to Philadelphia via horse-drawn carriage for a season finale aired live from Constitution Hall and hosted by a Ben Franklin hologram.

OK, that last part we made up. But the part about the elected electors is true.

• Point two is that each state gets one elector per member of Congress. If you’re Alaska, you get three, because you’ve got two senators and one representative. If you’re California, you’ve got 55, because you’ve got two senators and 53 representatives. The total of US electoral votes is 538. That’s why 270 will be the magic number on Election Day night – it’s half of 538, plus one.

We understand the math there may be more than any actual pundits in the crowd can handle. Our advice to them is to just relax and lie down on a green room couch until New York Times polling pro Nate Silverwalks in and explains it to you.

• Point three is that a candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state gets all its electoral votes. The exceptions to this rule are Nebraska and Maine, where the state winner gets the two electoral votes derived from the two senators, while the candidate who wins each congressional district gets the electoral vote derived from that representative.

Got that? No? Perhaps that’s why the other states don’t do it: the Electoral College is complicated enough without adding layers.

Also there is no truth to the rumor that Nebraska and Maine are pushing for a constitutional amendment allowing the winners of their respective states, if different, to fight a lasso vs. chain saw cage match for two extra electors.

• Point four is that the electors elected by the electorate cast their votes in their own special election. On the first Monday after the second Wednesday after Election Day, the electors meet in their respective states for their choices to be recorded on a special certificate which is forwarded to Congress and the National Archives as part of that cycle’s official records.

Previous to this, state governors produce a “Certificate of Ascertainment” for Washington, which lists all the presidential candidates and their electors, who won, and so forth. We’d go further into this whole fascinating paperwork thing except we’d like some readers still awake at the end. If you want to know more you can read about it here.

Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor’s Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation’s capital.

• Point five is that technically speaking the election of the president of the United States takes place during a joint session of Congress on January 6th following Election Day. That’s when members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to preside over the counting of electors’ votes, which apparently take a long time to get to DC.

“The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States,” concludes a National Archives summary of the process.

“If any?” Oy vey. We’d forgotten – a 269 to 269 tie throws the whole thing into the House of Representatives. That’s a subject for another story.

• Finally, our sixth and last point is that we got into this mess – excuse me, system – because the Founding Fathers faced a difficult and delicate task in establishing the way the infant US would pick its executive leader.

Think what it was like back in 1787. A group of 13 states, some small, some large, some slave, some free, was attempting to put together a process which satisfied them all. Plus there was no Google Maps, so travel between the ex-colonies was difficult and prone to wrong turns.

Many delegates to the constitutional convention just wanted the new president to be picked by Congress. But others were worried that this would lead to intrigue, and that the new leader would possibly feel beholden to those who chose him. (Yes, at the time they thought political parties, or “faction,” to be poisonous. Ha! If they saw how smoothly the president and Congress work together today to avoid doing anything about the looming “fiscal cliff” they’d realize their mistake.)

A core group feared direct democracy. The result was the Electoral College, a process which at the time seemed to stand between a one-person-one-vote approach and a congressional choice model.

The system’s details have changed over the years. At first, the electors cast separate ballots for president and vice president, with the first place finisher winning the top spot, and the second place finisher gaining the vice-presidency. After a few tries this was changed so that the electors cast a ballot for a two-person ticket.

(Here’s an interesting parlor game: try to think of the most poisonous Prez/VP pairing you can come up with under the old rules. My best try is President Al Gore and Vice President Dick Cheney.)

Today the system serves to balance the power of big and small states while spreading political power around the regions. At least a bit. Especially if you live in Ohio.

COURTESY OF YOUR NUMBER ONE ARCADIA REAL ESTATE AGENT