Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • CEVA CEO Presents at the Barclays Global Technology,...
  • New York & Management Discusses Q1 2013 Results -...
  • How Google Didn't 'Screw Up' YouTube
  • Median CEO Pay Rises to $9.7 Million
  • Paging R2-D2 to the hospital ICU
  • Atmel Corporation Presents at Barclays Global Technology...
  • Parents launch petition to bring back Father’s Day cards...
  • ‘A true warrior’: Soldier fought in Afghanistan before ‘...
  • The case for 4% inflation
  • Mutual Funds Weekly: Hard truth about your relationship...

    A brief word about the budget deal

    Sun, 04/10/2011 - 19:45 EDT - The Economist - Free Exchange Blog
    • RDF10

    THE timing of the deal struck on spending priorities for the remainder of the fiscal year was such that the government actually was shut down for a few minutes, before a one week stopgap resolution (which buys the time to complete legislation on the actual compromise) could be passed. But the damaging, uncertain duration halt to government operations that many feared has, it seems, been averted.My colleague has some details here, and of the process he writes:Congressmen from both parties are congratulating themselves on the historic nature of the deal. It does cut spending by an unprecedented amount, especially considering that half of the year has already passed. Moreover, it entails concessions from both sides. The Democrats agreed to far deeper cuts than they had wanted; the Republicans abandoned almost all of the ideologically-charged “riders” they had tried to slip into spending bills, undermining the Democrats’ health-care reforms, for example, or restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead the Democrats agreed to put some of these proposals to separate votes, knowing they will not pass the Senate. Mr Obama made a statement shortly after the agreement was announced full of stirring words such as “compromise”, “leadership” and “dedication”.For all this heady talk, however, the deal-making has been far from edifying. The Democrats brought events to this pass by neglecting to pass a budget last year, when they had control of both the House and the Senate. The Republicans, for their part, refused to accept a Democratic offer to cut the very amount their own leaders had originally proposed back in February, $75 billion, and instead held out for $100 billion. Moreover, in a naked display of opportunism, they seemed willing to bring the government to a standstill over riders that had nothing to do with the budget.I think it's worth remembering a few important things. First, the federal government did not need to cut spending in this fiscal year. There is no immediate fiscal crisis; on the contrary, yields on American government debt remain extraordinarily low. Second, macroeconomically speaking, now is a bad time to be cutting spending. The economy remains very weak, state and local governments are already trimming back public spending and placing a big drag on economic activity, and there's plenty of contractionary developments in the pipeline already, from the impending end of QE2 to the impact of rising oil prices. Since the government didn't need to cut and shouldn't, from a macroeconomic perspective, have been cutting in the first place, it's hard to understand why anyone thought it was a good idea to threaten a damaging government shutdown in order to cut.Third, had America actually been facing a crisis or had it simply been an opportune moment to trim back state spending, this was just about the worst way to go about cutting. The cuts don't touch on the real sources of the long-term budget problem. They impact important programmes and are therefore of questionable sustainability. Little to no effort was made to identify cuts with the best economic return. And the Republicans made a joke of the whole process by larding their demands with fiscally irrelevant riders, most of which seem tailored to enrage Democrats.Everyone involved should be embarrassed. But few journalists seem to think that this absurd sequence of events will in anyway reduce the likelihood of an even greater mess down the road when it comes time to raise the federal debt ceiling. The case for raising the debt ceiling is incredibly strong. For one thing, not raising the debt ceiling could be end up being really bad; the government would have to engage in major gymnastics to avoid a default. For another, not raising the debt ceiling would not address the government's deficits; deficits and debts are residuals. If you want to actually limit them you have to identify spending that should be cut and taxes that should be raised. What's more, the leaders of both parties say that the debt ceiling should be raised. Most everyone wants to do something which most everyone agrees should be done.And yet, the government will likely be pushed to the edge of crisis. These fights are risky and counterproductive. Sadly, I suspect that the reaction of most of the Washington press corps will be to—once again—get so caught up in the tick-tock of the dramatic showdown that they'll neglect to point out just how magnificently the elected leadership in Washington is failing its citizenry.

    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • Boehner Floats Fiscal Cliff "Plan B"; Obama Offers Concessions Regarding Tax on Wealthy

      Boehner Floats Fiscal Cliff "Plan B" Both house speaker John Boehner and president Obama have given ground in the "fiscal cliff" drama. The sides are still fall apart but concessions now are steady. The fact there is ongoing movement makes a deal possible. The obvious compromise target of the tax hikes on the wealthy is $500,000. Will we get there? Can Boehner get enough in return on entitlement cutbacks? On that score the president has barely budged, but the stock market sure seems to think a deal will be reached.

    • Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

      Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans.

    • A proud bipartisan tradition of budget gimmickry

      This is an extremely strange paragraph from Dana Milbank:

    • White House, Republicans reach deal to prevent ‘fiscal cliff’: Senate Democratic officials

      Racing against the clock, the White House reached agreement with congressional Republicans late Monday on a deal to prevent across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts to government programs from taking effect at midnight, according to administration and Senate Democratic officials. These officials said a New Year’s Eve vote in the Senate to ratify the deal was possible later in the evening, barring opposition from majority Democrats.

    • Boehner Responds To Obama: "Stop Blaming And Lead"

      If earlier media speculation that the cliff debate was seeing some progress would have sent stocks higher (assuming it was not a Sunday), the speaker's just released response to Obama's Meet The Press appearance would have deflated all hope of any progress. Remember: all is fair in political circus and Beltway theater. To wit: Boehner: President Obama Should Lead, Not Cast Blame

    • The Republicans' genius compromise strategy

    • Remembering Obama's campaign health-care plan

      "Though the American left and right don't agree on much," wrote Frank Rich over the weekend, "they are both now coalescing around the suspicion

    • Why Republicans don't have an alternative health-care bill

    • House GOP Medicare Elimination Plan Puts Conservatives in a Pickle

      It’s subscription-only, but Roll Call has a nice little piece by Steven T Dennis about how House GOP budget chief Paul Ryan’s plan to balance the budget by eliminating Social Security and Medicare is putting some of his colleagues on the hot seat:

    • Why the Senate bill is better than the House bill on cost control

      The Senate Finance Committee's bill, which will be quite close to the merged Senate bill, allows you to tell three credible stories on cost control that the House bill simply doesn't.

    Latest

    How Google Didn't 'Screw Up' YouTube
    How Google Didn't 'Screw Up'...
    Median CEO Pay Rises to $9.7 Million
    Median CEO Pay Rises to $9.7 Million

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • Pandora: the charm might fade away
    • Japanese Market, Indian Rupee, China’s Stocks and Oil Prices in Our Daily Round-Up for 05/23/2013
    • IMF calls on Osborne to spend on infrastructure

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1650.51 -0.29% FTSE: 6696.79 -2.14% Nikk.: 14932.6 3% DAX: 8351.98 -2.14% HSI: 22669.68 -2.61% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1681 USD/EUR: 1.2911 JPY/USD: 102.44 Commodities: Gold: 1388.75

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions