t***h
发帖数: 5601 | 1 Posted at 08:00 PM ET, 11/16/2011 By E.J. Dionne Jr.
I knew that there was a lot of automatic revenue there but didn't realize
how much until I called Jim Horney, Vice President for Federal Fiscal Policy
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He walked me through the
math and explained how the actual total in deficit reduction is $7.1
trillion. Jim kindly agreed to let me share with readers an email he wrote
me outling this. Here's what he said:
What would happen, however, if Congress did not do any of those things?
Deficits would be more than $7.1 trillion lower over the next 10 years, and
the budget would be nearly balanced in 2021. The savings from such inaction
would be:
$3.3 trillion from letting temporary income and estate tax cuts enacted
in 2001, 2003, 2009, and 2010 expire on scheduled at the end of 2012 (
presuming Congress also lets relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax expire,
as noted below);
$0.8 trillion from allowing other temporary tax cuts (the “extenders”
that Congress has regularly extended on a “temporary” basis) expire on
scheduled;
$0.3 trillion from letting cuts in Medicare physician reimbursements
scheduled under current law (required under the Medicare Sustainable Growth
Rate formula enacted in 1997, but which have been postponed since 2003) take
effect;
$0.7 trillion from letting the temporary increase in the exemption
amount under the Alternative Minimum Tax expire, thereby returning the
exemption to the level in effect in 2001;
$1.2 trillion from letting the sequestration of spending required if the
Joint Committee does not produce $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction take
effect; and
$0.9 trillion in lower interest payments on the debt as a result of the
deficit reduction achieved from not extending these current policies.
I would only add to what I said in the column that I am not proposing that
we use all of that $7.1 trillion over a decade for deficit reduction. And I
continue to believe we need immediate stimulus along the lines of President
Obama's jobs bill. But those who insist, as I do, that a significant share
of deficit reduction has to come from tax increases – particularly on the
wealthy – should much prefer to negotiate a solution with that $7.1
trillion in mind. There is absolutely no need for anyone, including the
ratings services, to panic if the supercommittee doesn't come up with a deal
. That's why I argued in the column that no deal is far better for sensible
deficit reduction than a bad one that contains insufficient revenues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-doin | t***h
发帖数: 5601 | 2 Hot rhetoric, tiny numbers separate Obama, Boehner
By By ALAN FRAM | Associated Press – Thu, Dec 20, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite all the hot fiscal cliff rhetoric, the
differences between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner
seem relatively narrow. So why haven't they shaken hands already? One answer
In their cliff standoff, Obama wants to raise taxes by about $20 billion a
year more than Boehner. The two men differ over spending cuts by roughly the
same amount.
That's real money by most measures. Yet such numbers are barely noticeable
compared to the $2.6 trillion the government is projected to collect next
year, and to the $3.6 trillion it's expected to spend.
As the "cliff" approaches - economy-shaking tax increases and spending cuts
that start hitting in early January unless lawmakers act first - each side
says the other isn't being serious enough about trimming federal deficits.
But their inability so far to strike a compromise underscores that their
problem is more than arithmetic - it's also about the difficult politics
that Democrat Obama and Republican Boehner face when it comes to lining up
votes.
Chastened by Obama's re-election, Boehner has violated a quarter-century of
Republican dogma by offering to raise taxes, including boosting income tax
rates on earnings exceeding $1 million annually. Eager for a budget deal
that would let him move on to other issues, Obama in turn would cut the
growth of Social Security benefits, usually off-limits to Democrats. He also
would impose tax increases on a broader swath of people than millionaires -
those with incomes over $400,000. But that figure, too, is a retreat from
what he campaigned on: the $200,000 income ceiling on individuals and $250,
000 on couples.
That means both men have angered lawmakers and staunch supporters of their
respective parties, just when the need to retain that support is crucial.
Neither wants to risk his political capital by embracing a deal his own
party rejects.
"When you walk into a room and represent a group and you have to give ground
to get a deal, you have to stay in that room as long as you can and you
have to walk out with blood on your brow," said Joseph Minarik, research
director for the Committee for Economic Development and a veteran of
grueling budget talks as a former Clinton White House and House Democratic
aide. "Otherwise, the people outside the room don't believe you've fought
hard for them."
With no quick resolution in sight, Boehner worked Thursday to push a backup
bill through the House that would raise taxes on people earning at least $1
million but not on those making less. Yet the difficulty in reaching
consensus was apparent once again: Boehner abruptly pulled back a vote on
the so-called Plan B proposal Thursday night, citing a lack of support among
Republicans.
A separate bill, approved Thursday night, would replace across-the-board
cuts in defense and domestic programs with cuts in Obama's health care
overhaul and other specified programs.
Economists say the tens of billions of dollars separating the president and
speaker are relatively minuscule, especially when compared to the size of
the U.S. economy, which exceeds $15 trillion a year.
"It's not vanishingly small, but it is minor," said Alan D. Viard, a tax
scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "It certainly
would be a disappointment if that minor of a gap would end up blocking an
agreement."
Even though Obama's and Boehner's dollar differences are small, one
hindrance to a deal could be the symbolic political consequence of
retreating on their numbers, even just by a little.
For Boehner to add, say, another $100 billion to the tax increase over 10
years could well mean that people with incomes well below $1 million a year
would get a tax increase, something he wants to limit.
On the other hand, adding $100 billion more in spending cuts could mean a
deeper hit than Obama wants to Medicare. The president prefers to limit
Medicare cuts to the reimbursements that doctors and other health care
providers receive, but ever deeper cuts could mean more doctors would be
likely to stop treating Medicare patients - an outcome Democrats don't want.
None of this means there aren't real budget differences between Democrats
and Republicans.
Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.2 trillion over the coming decade by
boosting the current top 35 percent rate to 39.6 percent for income over $
400,000, plus other increases on the highest earning Americans. He's also
says he's offered about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years,
including slowing the growth of benefits from Social Security and other
programs.
In addition, the president would pluck $400 billion in savings from Medicare
and Medicaid, the health care programs for the elderly and poor whose
defense Democrats consider precious priorities.
Boehner has offered about $1 trillion in tax increases and roughly the same
amount in spending savings. An earlier Boehner offer included $600 billion
in Medicare and Medicaid savings - well more than Obama - but it's unclear
whether the speaker is still seeking that figure.
Because of a dispute over how some savings are classified, Boehner says
Obama's offer is really $1.3 trillion in higher taxes and only about $850
billion in spending cuts.
The House speaker says Obama's offer is not balanced because its new taxes
and spending cuts are unequal. And he complains it does too little to
control fast-growing benefit programs like Medicare, a chief driver of the
federal government's mushrooming deficits.
"The real issue here, as we all know, is spending," Boehner said Thursday. "
You go through all these discussions, I don't think the White House has
gotten serious about the big spending problem the country faces."
The two men's differences work out to $200 billion over 10 years in taxes,
and about the same in spending, depending on whose numbers are used. Either
way, their gap is less than 1 percent of the money the government will spend
and tax anyway.
"They're a couple hundred billion apart. This is absolutely senseless," said
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisting Boehner should
compromise. "These are gyrations I've never seen before."
There are other differences, too.
Obama wants several billion dollars in infrastructure spending to goose the
economy and to extend expiring unemployment benefits. He also wants the
government's authority to borrow money extended for two more years - until
after the 2014 congressional elections - with Congress having little more
than symbolic opportunities to block it, a year longer than Boehner has
offered.
Even so, the numbers being proposed by Obama and Boehner are so close, and
the political risks both men have taken on taxes and Social Security
benefits are so stark, that many consider it almost unthinkable that they
would not eventually complete a deal.
"Having come out of their trenches, they either have to shake hands or get
shot, maybe by their own troops," said Robert Bixby, executive director of
the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, an anti-deficit group.
http://news.yahoo.com/hot-rhetoric-tiny-numbers-separate-obama- | t***h
发帖数: 5601 | 3 从上面两篇文章来看, 所谓的“美国财政悬崖”会在未来十年内增加税收和减少开支,
总共减少约7万亿美元的财政赤字. 但是也会在短期内导致经济衰退.
美国总统奥巴马的方案是, 在未来十年内加税和减少开支各1.2万亿美元, 合计减少财
政赤字约2.4万亿美元. 共和党的方案也差不多, 也是2万多亿美元.
2.4万亿美元的数字比起“财政悬崖”的7万亿美元无疑是大大降低了. 所以可以预期,
美国政府未来十年内的财政赤字问题仍将非常严重. |
|
