Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.

“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-41-1-in-tax-increases-to-spending-cuts-ratio

 

Are those the actual #'s, or is breitbart.com making up shit (not that they'd ever do that)

 

The White House and Senate have agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent
for 99 percent of households, starving the federal government of funds. Even Mitt
Romney could never have accomplished for the Republicans what Obama has just
done for them. The Democrats in the Senate would have soundly rejected the plan if
the Republicans had put it forward.

There has been a special absurdity to the entire negotiating process. Obama has
insisted that his top aim is to protect Bush's tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. In
the process he has lost sight of the even more basic need to protect the long-term
finances of the federal government.

We have been subjected to a White House negotiating process that violates
every standard of rationality and transparency. The public never once saw
an integrated budget proposal that showed the quantitative and qualitative
implications of various policy options. The public has not been told that yesterday's
agreement threatens the financing of crucial programs for education, job training,
infrastructure, environment, energy, science and technology, health care, nutrition,
and the poor for years to come.

Here are the simple facts. Government spending today is around 23 percent of
Gross Domestic Product, including 13 percent for mandatory transfer programs
(Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, veterans benefits, military retirement,
and others), 2 percent for interest, 4.5 percent for the military, and 3.5 for civilian
programs. Taxes are around 16 percent of GDP, but would probably produce
around 17-18 percent of GDP in a more robust economy.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire today would have raised tax collections by
around 2.5 percent of GDP, to around 21 percent of GDP by the end of the decade,
thereby allowing the government to pay its bills assuming that the useless wars
are ended and the bloated Pentagon budget is brought under control. The Obama-
Senate plan will instead keep taxes at around 18 percent of GDP. The CBO will soon
"score" the new tax plan; Democrats will be shocked at what the White House and
Senate have given away.

Whatever the precise numbers, the White House unilaterally and permanently gave
away more than 2 percent of GDP in net revenues, all in the name of symbolically
"taxing the rich" and "protecting the middle class." The pending agreement would
raise taxes very slightly on the top 1 percent of households, perhaps by 0.3 percent
of GDP, while making permanent well over 2 percent of GDP in Bush tax cuts.
Many people will say, "Yes, but why tax the middle class to collect more revenues?
Why not tax the rich even more to get to 21 percent of GDP?" There are two
answers. First, the pre-Bush tax schedule was in fact adequate. It was the schedule
of the Clinton years that supported balanced budgets and a reasonably healthy
macro-economy.

Second, yesterday's deal if approved by the House will make it impossible to get to
21 percent of GDP under any alternative scenario, and perhaps even to 19 percent.
The Republicans will now block any attempt to raise revenues as a share of GDP
and the White House will have no leverage. Obama is now a lame duck even before
being sworn in for his second term, and he will have brought the Democrats down
with him.

The White House should have put forward its own tax plan with adequate overall
revenues. It could have told Congress to adopt the alternative plan or simply accept
the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That was the time for negotiating leverage.
Instead, the White House gave up the revenues permanently and without a fight.
With a revenue baseline of around 18 percent of GDP, there will be years of harsh
spending cuts ahead. What will they be? Medicaid? Food Stamps? Roads? Water?
Renewable energy? Education? Pre-School? Environment? It will probably be "All
of the above."

Obama said yesterday that future deficit cuts must be "balanced" between tax
increases and spending cuts. But what will be his leverage to pass tax increases that
he didn't secure even when he had them in his pocket? None.

Why did he do it and why has the Senate gone along? The core reason is that
Washington has become all politics and no policy. Obama's game plan was to
get re-elected (in part by promising an extension of the Bush tax cuts for nearly
everybody) without thinking of what to do after that. It's policy by improvisation.
There is still time to resist this lousy deal. The House Democrats should try to vote
it down today. If such a last-minute action is successful, the Bush tax cuts would
end, and a new possibility for sound public finances would suddenly open.

If the deal passes, it will be a sad day for the Democratic Congressmen and Senators
who really care. They've been sold out, and with no Plan B. It will be sadder still
for the American people. The Federal Government is being dangerously weakened
in its capacity to help America address the economic, environmental, and social
challenges of the 21st century.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/reject-the-deal_b_2392654.html

 

I'm not surprised this "fix" is potentially making it worse. I'm also not surprised that no one else offered anything that would realistically do any good.

 

Paul Ryan offered a budget that did some good.

 

I would like to introduce you to the word realistic.

 

You can't keep ducking the fact that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are dominating the demand for spending and taxation. To do nothing about it is the unrealistic part. Ryan's plan at least tackled those as a way of getting things moving in the right direction.

$359,796,008,919.49

That's how much money the govt. paid in interest on the debt. Imagine all the "good" things govt. could do with that money to spend instead of spending China's money.

 

I want you to step up and pay your fair share of my expenses. While we're at it, I want to spend a lot more, so the definition of "fair share" when it comes to you will be considerably more and more.

Thanks!

 

As anyone who's followed the news since Obama's reelection knows, congressional democrats preferred to go over the cliff so the could force republicans to vote to cut taxes on at least some of the people. And those Democrats have no intention or desire to cut any spending at all.

It used to be democrats were tax and spend while republicans were borrow and spend. Now republicans cave due to poorly played PR and Democrats are tax and borrow and bankrupt us and spend.

 

You need to cut about $1.3T to get back to Clinton surpluses. Cut the Dept. of Defense to $0 and you're $700B short.

Good luck with that.

 

Downsize us all to Mexican poverty level while we're at it. That's where it's all headed anyhow.