Is a Bad Deal Better Than No Deal At All?

 

Beltway insiders are praising the just announced budget deal between the Democrats and the Republicans.  For example, a news analysis in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Accord Is Departure for Capitol”, suggests that budget politics may be changing, getting any deal is very hard, that perhaps bipartisanship isn’t dead in Washington but that there is still unfinished business.  This is a purely euphemistic assessment.   All this deal really does is to let the big spenders off the hook.
What it does is to relax the sequester by $63 billion for the next two years for very little in return.  The $84 billion in new fees over ten years “officially” reduces the deficit by $21 billion but two year’s worth of new fees is just $16.8 billion.  This means that the deficit will actually increase by $46 billion over the next two years.
But the real problem is that the leverage represented by the sequester is being thrown away for the next two years and this sets a bad precedent for the future.  For example, we can now assume that the debt limit will also be raised for two more years in February 2014 because there will no longer be any leverage for bargaining for any other changes.
This in turn means that entitlement reform is for all practical purposes dead for the next two years.  This is the really hard problem to solve.  Big spenders will do anything to avoid dealing with it.  Responsible fiscal conservatives know it must be addressed and need all the help they can muster to get something done.
What happens if the budget deal is not passed by Congress?  It simply means that the sequester remains in effect and that discretionary spending will be $43 billion lower this current budget year than otherwise.  The value of the sequester is to force action on the really thorny issue of reducing entitlement spending.  Let’s preserve it for this purpose and not throw it away for nothing significant in return.
Leaders are supposed to address issues, not walk away from them!

Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems by Taxing the Rich? I. The Third Way

“I enjoy your blogs and always look forward to the next one.”
“I am amazed when listening to my liberal friends, who could care less about any of the arguments you are making. Their basic belief is that any deficit can be solved in short order by simply raising taxes on the rich. One of these friends just bought a home in Palm Springs and came back declaring, ” Jerry Brown solved the financial problem in California. He raised taxes on the rich and the deficit is gone. California no longer has a financial problem.” He then went on to say that with 40 million people, California will set a good example for the country. After listening to this, I think you should address the issue of why simply increasing taxes will never work. I would start with Simpson Bowles and then go on to more recent findings. I think this argument has to be made over and over again. There are precious few Democrats who think we have a serious or fundamental financial problem that cannot be solved by simply raising taxes on the rich. I believe Obama is leading the charge.”

One response to this argument is provided by the President, Jon Cowan, and the Senior Vice President for Policy, Jim Kessler, of the Third Way, a center-left think tank, in a June 2013 memo, “The Four Fiscal Fantasies” .

  • Fantasy #1: Taxing the rich solves our problems.

Mr. Cowan and Mr. Kessler look at a plan that “completely soaks the rich.”  They stipulate that the top tax rate increases ten points to 49.6%.  They impose the Buffett Rule requiring all millionaires to pay at least 30% in taxes (after deductions).  They raise the estate tax to allow a $3.5 million exemption with a 45% rate.  “If we leave entitlements on auto-pilot in this scenario, our deficit in 2030 will be close to a stunning $1.3 trillion in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars.”
The authors then show that to keep our finances even roughly in check, a middle income family with a $65,000 income, for example, would have to pay several thousand dollars a year in new taxes.
Conclusion:  We cannot keep entitlements on auto-pilot.  Something has to give!