GUEST EDITORIAL: Fiscal cliff, here we come
by Baltimore Sun
Dec 10, 2012 | 2955 views | 8 8 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Watch out, folks, this could get bumpy.

With the release Monday of a proposal, or something approximating one, from House Republican leaders on a way to avert the “fiscal cliff,” we now have the opening positions from both parties, neither of which has any chance of becoming law. That is to be expected; no deal is going to be accomplished without a lot of political posturing from both sides and without some serious deadline pressure. But despite what in some respects is a step forward, there is real reason now to think that we will, at least briefly, go over the cliff.

There are many flaws with the proposal House Speaker John Boehner and several of his lieutenants made on Monday. Its promise of $800 billion in new revenue over the next decade relies on the closing and limiting of unspecified loopholes and deductions but rejects higher tax rates on the wealthy. Higher tax rates on the top brackets are the only way to ensure that those with higher incomes are actually the ones paying more.

And much of the projected savings from budget cuts comes from unspecified program cuts — as if all federal spending were created equal — and from increasing the eligibility age for Medicare, a proposal that would save perhaps $100 million in that entitlement program over the next decade but in the process increase the nation’s overall tab for health care.

Furthermore, the Republicans remain insistent on making Social Security reforms a part of the fiscal cliff conversation, even though that program’s finances are relatively sound, and it is not a driver of current budget deficits. The proposal is, in key respects, a rehash of the ideas that lost Mitt Romney the presidency.

On the plus side, it does dispense with the notion that deficit reduction should center on a radical restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid, and it suggests that Republicans are willing to accept real revenue increases, not the fantasy increases they have previously insisted would spring from a growing economy. And Rep. Paul Ryan, the House budget chairman, signed on.

Given the reality of the situation — on Jan. 1, tax rates on everyone are going up if nothing gets done — and the recent suggestion by some Republican lawmakers that the party should just pass tax cuts for the middle class now and worry about the rest later, Mr. Boehner’s proposal might seem like so much political throat-clearing before the two sides get down to some earnest, smoke-filled-room deal making.

But there is one big problem here, and it is the same one that drove the debt ceiling debacle of 2011. Mr. Boehner may find he has little room for honest negotiation with President Barack Obama because even the tiny steps he is taking toward the center are being blasted from the right.

A Heritage Foundation blog called his proposal “utterly unacceptable” and “categorical, pre-emptive capitulation.” The president of Americans for Prosperity, a key backer of the tea party movement, said in a statement Monday, “This plan leaves conservatives wanting.” Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday morning in his blog RedState that Mr. Boehner’s offer makes him a sell-out. “The opposition is not just across the aisle, but in charge of our own side in the House of Representatives,” he said. The Club for Growth is calling three Republicans Mr. Boehner removed from their committees martyrs to the cause of true fiscal conservatism. South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a key figure in conservative circles, is calling the plan “Speaker Boehner’s $800 billion tax hike,” and Sarah Palin admonished Republicans not to be “wusses” and compromise with Democrats on the fiscal cliff. (She later apologized for her choice of words but not the sentiment.)

The reality is that President Obama’s bargaining position only strengthens on the other side of the cliff. His goal of higher tax rates for the rich would then automatically become law, and his desire to maintain lower tax rates for the rest of the nation would be next to impossible for Republicans to oppose. The president could also likely limit the immediate damage from the across-the-board spending cuts due to take place in the new year until a broader deal could be negotiated.

There is, however, real risk that even a brief fall over the cliff could roil financial markets, sap business and consumer confidence and send the economy back into recession. For that reason, the president must still put forward a good faith effort to strike a deal before Jan. 1. But he shouldn’t accept anything close to what Mr. Boehner is proposing.

Republicans, meanwhile, should realize that they aren’t ever going to get a better deal than now, and that if we do go over the fiscal cliff, they’ll get the blame — a new Pew poll says 53 percent would blame the GOP and only 29 percent would blame President Obama. It’s in the party’s best interests — and those of the nation — to strike a deal much closer to the political center. The question now is whether they have the will to do it.

Comments
(8)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Termlimits
|
December 17, 2012
Esoteric unnamed "second study"!

Can’t Hide Crazy
Termlimits
|
December 16, 2012
Common and freak - what say you - Democratic presidents have overseen the creation of nearly twice as many jobs as Republican presidents since 1961.

What's the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million] Bloomberg Government first reported these figures in May, after analyzing growth in private-sector jobs since 1961.
Termlimits
|
December 15, 2012
Brace yourself freak...

Obama: $1.6 trillion in taxes on the wealthy, $50 billion in short-term stimulus spending and $612 billion in recycled cuts. GOP: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. Obama: Ok...what's YOUR proposal then? GOP: *crickets*. The Party of 'No' is back, baby
NoFreakinWay
|
December 16, 2012
What an awesome idea! Tax the hell out of the people and businesses that pay your salaries! That will certainly get you a raise AND a promotion! Termlimits, I wish I was as smart as you. That's why I'm gonna head right over to Papa John's, get a full-time job, have great benefits, and an awesome retirement plan. Everyone knows that businesses care only about the people. Profits are so overrated anyway. What was I thinking when I disagreed with you and King Obama???
Termlimits
|
December 15, 2012
Talk about money spent wisely: Republican created Homeland Security spent $430 million radios no one knows how to use.
NoFreakinWay
|
December 15, 2012
At least they still have the radios. Obama's thrown so much money at failed green energy companies that $430 million looks like pocket change. The Democrats are in control now. It's time to quit campaigning and start looking at your own party's insanity.
tman61
|
December 15, 2012
I must admit. It does suck to see your country going down the tubes. No question about it. I would not mind paying higher taxes if the money is spent wisely. And frankly neither party does that. We are at a place now where we will have a governing elite who rule with iron fists.

The masses are ok with this as the gimme society grows and grows. That includes everyone, from the welfare mom who takes the govt handout and works jobs off the books, to the wealthy businessman who gladly accepts medicare, even though he can afford his on healthcare. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Guess what folks. At some point the money will not be there. Then who are you going to steal it from?
Demodog
|
December 10, 2012
Farmer J R you are so right..."Shady" Deal, Chip(s)Rogers and our own Rep. (read representative/republican)Tom Graves who has made a mint utilizing the Bankruptcy entitlement, along with his co-conspirator Chips Rogers who is now on the public dole.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.