What Deficit? Tax Deal Comes With Major Costs
Vince Bucci
The "framework" laid out by President Obama that extends the Bush tax cuts for all Americans for two years, cuts payroll taxes, reinstates the estate tax, and extends unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months, among other components, has given lawmakers and pundits plenty to argue about.
But there's one thing they should be able to agree on: The package doesn't come cheap. And it signals that both Democrats and Republicans, despite their professed concern about America's debt problem, do not see dealing with it as a priority, at least in the short term.
Consider: The top concession to Republicans - the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners - comes at a cost of about $60 billion per year. To save that much money, lawmakers would have to eliminate earmarks, enact Mr. Obama's proposed federal pay freeze, cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and cut foreign aid in half.
The top concessions to Democrats is the 13-month extension of unemployment insurance benefits - which will cost another $56 billion - along with the expiring Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and American Opportunity Tax Credit - which adds another $40 billion to the price tag.
The payroll tax cut included in the bill will cost another $120 billion. If the deal goes through, that means a significant reduction funding for Social Security and Medicare - despite the fact that those entitlement programs are already on shaky ground thanks to the aging Baby Boomer population.
Add up all the costs from the bill, in fact - which also includes a write-off for business investments and changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax - and you're looking at a price tag of at least $900 billion over two years, according to Moneywatch's Jill Schlesinger. The price tag on Mr. Obama's stimulus package that so angered the Tea Party movement? As of this summer, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it at $814 billion.
The White House insists that the agreement "does not worsen the medium- and long-term deficit." In a fact sheet sent to reporters today, it said Mr. Obama planned to keep the tax cuts on the richest Americans from becoming permanent, which he has said repeatedly would cost $700 billion over a decade.
"These are responsible, temporary measures to support our economy that will not add costs by the middle of the decade," the White House said.
Those who agreed to the deal appear to have calculated that the still-struggling economy means that concerns about the deficit and national debt need to be put aside until the economy improves. And this agreement, they say, will help that happen by encouraging businesses to invest and Americans to spend the additional money they find in their paychecks.
In this line of thinking, the short term cost of spurring the economy will be made up by the long-term benefits of a more vibrant economy. The payroll tax cut, the White House said, "is widely recognized by economists across the political spectrum as a high bang for the buck way to boost growth."
Indeed, while no one is using the word, the tax cut deal amounts to something of a stealth stimulus package. But while the actual stimulus bill, which was roughly one-third tax cuts, was vilified by Republicans, this bill appears to have support from many GOP lawmakers, particularly in the Senate.
The strongest opposition to the agreement so far is, in fact, coming from House Democrats, who say the tax cut for high earners is a waste of money that will do little to help the economy. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) called the plan "fiscally irresponsible," while Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the agreement "will be vehemently opposed by many if not most Democrats, progressives, and some Republicans who are concerned with the country's financial budget."
The agreement provides a conundrum for self-styled Tea Partiers, who have pushed for tax cuts - but also fiscal discipline. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, says she is not yet sure how she would vote on the deal.
In the Senate, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is promising to do everything he can to block "more tax breaks for billionaires who don't need it." And retiring Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio called the agreement "completely irresponsible."
Americans, he said, "should know that a lot of the reduction of their taxes is borrowed money from China."
In an interview with Hotsheet, Rep. Welch, who describes himself as progressive, elaborated on his opposition the deal.
"We're making a trillion dollar decision that's going to add that much to the debt in two years," he said.
Tax Cut Deal Reveals Obama 2.0
For Obama, Championing Compromise May Be Lonely
Obama: Deal with GOP on Tax Cuts
Tax Cuts For All Americans?
GOP Win on Taxes Leaves Some Dems Fuming
Obama Faces Liberal Revolt over Tax Cut Deal
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 201 Comments
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Obama prom pictures surface
Far better to let all tax cuts expire, than to waste 900 billion dollars.
We've got to look at the best Democrats and the best Republicans to do the job to get us back to basics and in the moderation mode. The BEST Democrats AND Republicans. Throw the left-leaning and the right-leaning ones out of office with your votes. Keep the ones who are willing to work for moderation FOR the people. We need to know what these people stand for before we vote. Don't vote for the party - vote for the policy and the person.
www.whitehouse.gov I believe is the website that lists ineffective government programs. If this doesn't work, google "ineffective government programs" and get the link.
The Fed Gov needs to move away from education and let the states handle it. They need to move away from healthcare and place it back into the hands of the people. They need to revise tax law. They need to look at farm subsidies.
We as citizens must continue to push. If we quit, it is business as usual in Washington. We may not see any progress, but in order to get elected in 2012, they have got to listen to us.
Evaluate everything the government does, and phase out programs and departments found not to be worthwhile. Forced just cause to replace a federal worker when a federal worker retires. We have to get serious with this and not pretend that we can afford a massive government.
The liberal way is to tax the rich guy, those taxes allow the government to pay unemployed people forever with no hope of economic growth or social advancement. Trapped forever on welfare. The liberal American dream. I'd rather take my chances with the rich guy.
Americans, he said, 'should know that a lot of the reduction of their taxes is borrowed money from China.'"
Pay no attention to what Voinovich says. He will vote for it. It is his pattern. He makes a big stink about caring about the deficit and then votes for the tax cuts, just like he did when these cuts were first put into place. He's completely untrustworthy.
Good for Bernie Sanders! More power to him. Obama was elected because people like me got excited about the prospect of somebody who would actually stand up for America instead of just international billionaires. When he started to cave in to the Party of No, I said, "Well ... he's just being reasonable and rational. That's why we elected him." But now that it has become a pattern and it's getting us NOWHERE, I say, "We need a leader who is willing to go toe to toe with the new capitalist royalty."
The Congressional Budget Office ranked tax cuts for the rich DEAD LAST in effectiveness in promoting economic growth. The stinking rich don't need a tax cut! The only reason they're getting one is that money really can buy votes. This is the time to take a stand! I don't care what else suffers ... unemployment benefits, defense funding ... whatever. The rich should not get this obscene tax cut for another two years. Block it AT ANY COST!