Writing for the Daily Beast, Will Marshall argues that Obama is in a strong position to challenge the new Congress to pass a fiscal grand bargain early in 2013:
The fiscal cliff deal finally passed by the House Tuesday night isn’t likely to lift the public’s rock-bottom esteem for the nation’s elected leaders. It took too long and delivered too little, and the spectacle of a Congress that can’t conduct the nation’s business except under extreme duress from self-imposed deadlines and penalties is infuriating.
Still the outcome wasn’t terrible—and it shows that a grand fiscal bargain is still in reach, as our deeply polarized political class seems to be relearning the art of compromise.
The deal is best understood as ratifying the 2012 election result. President Obama campaigned and won on explicit promises to raise tax rates on the rich. That mandate, plus the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts, left Republicans with no choice but to negotiate with the White House over narrowing the scope of the coming tax hike.
Fiscal cliff or not, the coming years are certain to bring cuts in public spending on higher education. The looming sequestration threatens to cut $500 billion in federal discretionary spending starting next year, leaving a multi-billion dollar hole in R&D funding at public universities. State governments have already begun higher education funding cutbacks. So as policymakers pledge austerity and deficit reduction, colleges and universities will be left in a financial pinch.
Students and university faculty and staff are the obvious targets to fill these budget holes. But who actually pays the price for cuts in university funding?
New PPI research suggests college students will bear the brunt of additional austerity imposed on colleges and universities. Looking at previous cuts in public funding, we found college students were unquestionably worse off relative to faculty and staff when it came to making up the difference. And the impact of this uneven allocation could be serious. If college students continue to pay the biggest price for austerity, the next generation of young people may think twice about the value of going to college.
That’s because college students paid a high price for cuts in university funding over the last decade, while faculty and staff were relatively unaffected. As shown in this first graph, total tuition at four-year universities rose a staggering 35% over the last decade (in constant dollars). These rising prices are certainly behind the rising real average debt per graduate, up almost 30% over the same time.
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, PPI President Will Marshall explains why Obama should show some flexibility now and set the stage for a more comprehensive tax overhaul in 2013:
Barack Obama is under pressure from his left flank to break House Republicans on the wheel of higher marginal tax rates, but he is showing flexibility in negotiations with Speaker John Boehner. This is wise. By settling for something less than unconditional surrender, the president could get a deal that will avoid plunging the U.S. economy into austerity and set the stage for a historic tax overhaul next year.
So how do we get there from here? The first step is to resolve the dispute that has snagged the fiscal-cliff talks—how to raise taxes on the rich. To the horror of tea party purists, Mr. Boehner has acceded to higher tax rates on millionaires. Obama countered on Monday by proposing higher rates on households making $400,000 or more, and he lowered his overall revenue goal to $1.2 trillion from $1.6 trillion.
The president has the edge here. If Republicans refuse to accept higher rates for any wealthy taxpayers, there will be no deal. Then tax rates will rise for all Americans, and Republicans will be blamed for driving the economy off the cliff.
Writing for Politico‘s Arena , PPI President Will Marshall discuses Obama’s fiscal cliff policy:
President Obama holds the whip hand on taxes.
He campaigned and won on the explicit promise of raising tax rates on the wealthiest two percent of Americans. It’s the closet thing to a mandate the 2012 elections produced. And polls make it clear that the public will blame Republicans if there’s no deal and we go off the cliff.
Deal or no deal, tax rates on the rich are going up. Unless they have a political death wish, Republicans can no longer hold the Norquist line. So they’d be wise to negotiate with the president, angling for a top rate lower than the default rate of 39.6, in return for a promise to revisit the issue next year in the context of comprehensive tax reform. The more lawmakers succeed next year in broadening the tax base – by closing tax loopholes and preferences – the stronger argument they can make for lowering tax rates.
Writing for U.S. News & World Report, Jason Gold explains the impact of the fiscal cliff on homeowners.
With the clock ticking, the nation is engrossed in Washington’s horse wrangling over the fiscal cliff, a nasty double whammy of spending cuts and tax hikes that experts predict could usher in another crippling recession.
But while Democrats defend entitlements and Republicans defend against tax increases, no bigger constituency seems to be more in the cross-hairs than homeowners. The popular mortgage-interest deduction (MID), long thought to have hands-off status, is now on the table as lawmakers try to steer the country away from plunging headlong over the fiscal cliff.
To what degree eliminating or reducing the MID, which costs the government an estimated $98 billion annually, impacts the housing market is debatable. While a potential change in the MID has caused a great deal of coverage in the news—and no doubt great anxiety for the average homeowner—most can sit back and take a deep breath … for now. The MID won’t be part of the fiscal cliff fix.
Will Marshall was a panelist at the Fix The Debt policy conference on Tuesday, Dec. 4, discussing two of the biggest issues surrounding federal budget deficits and the national debt – tax reform and healthcare
The panel called on Pres. Obama and Congress to tackle the nation’s budget problems. The group proposed fiscal policies for entitlements, discretionary spending and raising additional revenues.
Maya MacGuineas, head of the Washington-based Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, provided introductory remarks and then Peter Cook, Bloomberg News, moderated discussions with leading corporate CEOs, top federal and state politicians along with advocacy groups and former World Bank President Robert Zoellick.
PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein was a guest on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal discussing the role that the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform (also known as the “Simpson-Bowles Commission”) are playing in the ongoing negotiations on averting the “fiscal cliff.”
PPI President Will Marshall speaks to The Daily Beast regarding the compromises needed from the left to avoid the fiscal cliff:
‘It appears President Obama is serious about slowing the growth of public health and retirement costs, which is the key to bending down the curve of federal spending,’ says Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. ‘The big question now is whether leading Democrats in Congress will stand up to the Norquists of the left and put real entitlement reform on the table.’
That is the big question. Labor unions rightly believe that they were essential to the president’s winning coalition and ground-game effort in the November election. They and many liberal partisans will insist that now is not the time to make any concessions, especially on core philosophic policies like Social Security and Medicaid. They will find comfort in the arguments of some party activists and pundits who say there is no problem, that the fiscal cliff is a myth, and that current levels of deficits and debt are perfectly sustainable, especially if we just soak the rich. They are, like their conservative corollaries, embracing a feel-good reality distortion field.
Math isn’t partisan. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that because of our aging population, cumulative spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt could gobble all federal revenues by the end of the next decade. The status quo is unsustainable. We cannot simply tax or spend or borrow our way out of this problem. Striking the right decisive balance is critical to our long-term economic strength as a nation.
PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was featured in the National Journal on regulatory reform:
Mitchell suggests creating a commission, modeled on the process that Congress has used to determine which military bases to realign or close, to weed out and eliminate federal spending that benefits certain businesses at the expense of others. Economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests a similar body to reduce the government’s impact on business growth by identifying federal regulations to repeal or modify.
PPI President Will Marshall explains on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” why cuts in defense spending from the impending sequestration is the wrong way to reign in the Federal deficit.
The Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm quotes Will Marshall on Jack Kemp and Empower America:
“What the Empower America folks wanted to do is move beyond the green eyeshade, balance-the-budget message of traditional conservatism. They didn’t want to have simply a negative narrative about government,” said Will Marshall, who headed a similar policy shop for Clinton’s New Democrats.
Marshall also pointed out that Kemp went out of his way to advocate for new ways of helping low-income Americans. He proposed creating specially targeted business and income-tax breaks in designated “enterprise zones” of high poverty as an alternative to direct government handouts.
As the presidential candidates debate the fate of Medicare, it’s worth noting a very simple fact: Mitt Romney paid only 0.07% of his income in Medicare taxes in 2010. By comparison, the typical American worker paid 1.45% of his or her income in Medicare taxes plus an equal amount paid by the employer. In other words, Romney’s Medicare tax rate was about one-fortieth of the norm.
How did he manage this trick? The key is that investment income, which made up 97% of Romney’s total income in 2010, is not subject to payroll taxes that pay for Medicare or Social Security. That means he only paid Medicare taxes on his speaking and directing fees. If Romney had paid the full Medicare tax rate on all of his income, he would have paid about $628,000. Instead he paid $15,908.
Oddly enough, despite his relatively meager contribution, Mitt is also likely eligible for free Medicare coverage. Current Medicare rules stipulate that as long as he paid into the system for 10 years, he can still receive full coverage.
Because Romney is self-employed, he is paying both the employer and employee shares of the Medicare tax. We therefore compared his tax rate to the combined employer-employee rate for wage and salary workers (2.9% for Medicare taxes). And because he is self-employed Romney got to deduct a portion of his Medicare taxes to calculate his adjusted total income for tax purposes.
A new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income for high income Americans, scheduled to go into effect in 2013 as part of healthcare reform, would dramatically boost the Medicare taxes paid by people with Romney-like returns. However, there are efforts underway in Congress to get it repealed.
Sometimes things are not what we think they are. The conventional notion is that government has become more important under President Obama, while the private sector has stagnated. Yet in some ways the data tell a different story. Take a look at this chart:
The top (blue) line shows that private nonresidential investment has rebounded smartly since early 2009, when President Obama took office. Residential investment first dropped, and then mostly came back.
To most Americans, fiscal responsibility is a question of political morality. If Democrats allow the debate to be framed as a choice between more deficit spending and debt reduction, they lose
Much to the perplexity of US liberals, the politics of debt reduction dominated Washington in 2010, despite a faltering economic recovery.
No one was more incensed by the seeming illogic of this than Paul Krugman. The influential New York Times columnist railed often against “premature austerity” and urged President Obama instead to open the spigots of federal spending. It was the standard Keynesian prescription, but it betrayed a political tin ear. To a public alarmed by large-scale public borrowing and spending, it sounded like throwing good money after bad.
After 2007, US budget deficits ballooned as the Bush and Obama administrations spent heavily to bail out the big banks (plus insurance and auto companies) and counter the worst recession since the 1930s. The federal deficit, $469 billion in 2008, zoomed to an eye-popping $1.3 trillion in 2011. Coming on top of the Bush tax cuts and two costly wars, this emergency spending pushed the US national debt over 70% of GDP.
Had this torrent of spending – reinforced by generous doses of monetary “easing” – unlocked business investment and cut the jobless rate, all might have been forgiven. But it didn’t, and public apprehension about exploding debts amid a jobless recovery rose steadily, reaching a crescendo in the 2010 elections. Republicans swept House races and, lashed on by the Tea Party, stormed into Washington determined to cut government down to size.
Thus 2011 became a year of fiscal brinkmanship. First the government was almost shut down last spring when budget talks broke down. Then came the summer showdown over raising the debt ceiling, which ended when Obama blinked and agreed to GOP demands for spending cuts rather than let America default on its debts for the first time ever. In the fall, a bipartisan “supercommittee” that was granted extraordinary powers to rein in deficits failed to reach agreement, triggering automatic domestic spending cuts in 2013.
Despite such nips and tucks, US leaders thrice failed to come to grips with the structural causes of America’s debt crisis: tax revenues well below historic norms, and the rapid growth of public health and pension costs as the baby boomers throng into retirement. This ensures that the debate over how to control the national debt – $15 trillion and growing – will be front and centre in the 2012 presidential election.
The public’s top priorities are jobs and reviving US competitiveness. But fiscal discipline also matters to most voters, especially the moderates and independents who hold the balance in close races. Only by embracing both goals can progressives forge an electoral majority in 2012. If Obama and the Democrats allow the fiscal debate to be framed as a choice between more deficit spending or debt reduction, they lose. If instead they champion fiscal restraint and focus the debate on the fairest and most growth-friendly way to achieve it, they can win.
That’s because Republicans have painted themselves in a corner by refusing to raise any new tax revenue to help solve the debt crisis. Americans don’t relish paying higher taxes, but they do want their elected leaders to work together to solve the country’s problems. House Republicans have repeatedly put their anti-tax dogma before their responsibility to govern, and have seen their public approval ratings tumble as a result.
In contrast, Obama appears eminently reasonable in calling for “shared sacrifice”, which in practice means reducing the debt with a mix of spending cuts and tax revenues. He has also put Republicans on the defensive for opposing tax hikes on the rich, even to pay for tax relief for working families.
But Obama can’t let his own party off the hook, either. If Republicans are in denial about the need for higher revenues, Democrats have yet to get serious about the other side of the fiscal equation – slowing the unsustainable cost growth of the big “entitlement” programmes: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Washington has promised more to future retirees than it can afford to pay; the government recently put the funding gap at $34 trillion, many times larger than the entire US economy.
There’s nothing “progressive” about denying hard fiscal facts, yet many liberals cling to the habit of opposing any cuts in future benefits – even for wealthy Americans – as a breach of faith, if not a plot to kill social insurance in America. Not only is this stance blind to demographic and budget realities, it’s morally dubious as well.
If benefits for the elderly are deemed untouchable, then Congress will have to either raise taxes on everyone, including working families, or cut domestic spending to the bone, or both. Domestic spending (including defence) has already borne the brunt of the spending cuts agreed to last year. It is only 12% of the budget, but it includes all the key public investments progressives should be for – in infrastructure, education and workforce skills, science and technology – not to mention public health and safety and measures to alleviate poverty. To shield entitlements from cuts is, in effect, to give priority to retirees’ consumption over strategic investments in a more prosperous and equitable society.
There is little mystery over what it will take to solve America’s debt crisis. President Obama’s own Fiscal Commission says $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade is necessary to stabilise the national debt at around 60% of GDP. Hitting that ambitious target will require a political “grand bargain” in which Republicans accept increased tax revenues, and Democrats agree to trim benefits for affluent retirees in the future. Unfortunately, Obama’s reluctance to endorse his Commission’s blueprint has left his own party as well as the public in doubt about the depth of his commitment to fiscal stabilisation.
As the presidential race begins in earnest, Obama will come under growing pressure to offer bigger and more specific ideas for spurring economic growth and shrinking the national debt. He needs a concrete plan for restoring fiscal responsibility gradually, through a combination of tax and entitlement reform, while also boosting public investment. Properly sequenced, a “cut and invest” approach can attenuate the dilemma Krugman and others point to – the collision between the stimulative effect of public spending (and tax cuts) and the contractionary impact of fiscal retrenchment.
Adopting a 10-year framework for debt reduction will reassure nervous investors that Washington is determined to get its borrowing under control and protect the nation’s credit. By cutting debt service payments, it will redirect public spending from consumption to productive investment. It will reduce America’s dependence on foreign lenders (especially China) and rebuild the nation’s “fiscal reserve” so that it can borrow to meet future emergencies or downturns without plunging into Greek-style levels of debt.
The economic case for providing certainty about debt reduction is compelling. But most Americans don’t wear green eyeshades; for them, fiscal responsibility is a question of political morality. They see the nation’s runaway debt as emblematic of a corrupt political class that doles out slices of the public weal to privileged interests and rent-seekers in return for campaign contributions. The image of a bloated state that lives beyond its means powerfully buttresses the anti-government populism that resonates not only with Tea Partiers but also with the independent voters that progressives need to win back this year.
The good news for Obama is that the demands of economic growth and fiscal rectitude point in the same direction – away from America’s old economic model of debt-fueled consumption, towards a new progressive growth strategy based on higher levels of investment, faster innovation and expanded production.
The official failure of the congressional “supercommittee” came and went without much hand-wringing in Wingnut World; indeed, the prevailing sentiment was quiet satisfaction that Republicans had not “caved” by accepting tax increases as part of any deficit reduction package. It was all a reminder that most conservative activists are not, as advertised, obsessed with reducing deficits or debts, but only with deficits and debts as a lever to obtain a vast reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and the elimination of progressive taxation. For the most part, the very same people wearing tricorner hats and wailing about the terrible burden we are placing on our grandchildren were just a few years ago agreeing with Dick Cheney’s casual assertion that deficits did not actually matter at all.
It is interesting that throughout the Kabuki Theater of the supercommittee’s “negotiations,” the GOP’s congressional leadership came to largely accept the Tea Party fundamental rejection of any compromise between the two parties’ very different concepts of the deficit problem. From the get-go, Democrats were offering both non-defense-discretionary and entitlement cuts in exchange for restoring tax rates for the very wealthy to levels a bit closer to (though still lower than) their historic position. The maximum Republican offer was to engage in some small-change loophole closing accompanied by an actual lowering of the top rates in incomes, plus extension of the Bush tax cuts to infinity. Conservatives are perfectly happy to let an on-paper “sequestration” of spending take place, with the expectation that a Republican victory in 2012 will put them in a position to brush aside the defense cuts so authorized and then go after their federal spending targets with a real vengeance.
The GOP presidential candidates have offered two opportunities during the last week for wingnuts of a particular flavor to assess their views and character. The much-awaited Thanksgiving Family Forum in Des Moines was perhaps the first candidate forum of the cycle in which no one even pretended to set aside cultural issues in favor of an obsessive focus on the economy or the federal budget. The format, involving not a debate but a serial interrogation of candidates by focus group master Frank Luntz, was explicitly aimed at getting to each contender’s “worldview,” the classic Christian Right buzzword for one’s willingness to subordinate any and all secular considerations and choose positions on the issues of the day via a conservative-literalist interpretation of the Bible (i.e., one in which phantom references to abortion are somehow found everywhere, and Jesus’ many injunctions to social activism are treated as demands for private charity rather than redistributive efforts by government).
According to The Iowa Republican’s Craig Robinson in his assessment of the event, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were the only candidates who succeeded in articulating a “biblical worldview” under Luntz’s questioning. Newt Gingrich got secular media attention for his Archie Bunkerish “take a bath and get a job” shot at the dirty hippies of OWS, but inside the megachurch where the event was held, the star was probably Santorum, whose slim presidential hopes strictly depend on Iowa social conservatives adopting him as their candidate much as they united around Mike Huckabee in 2008.
It is interesting that immediately after the event, Rick Perry joined Santorum and Bachmann as the only candidates willing to sign the radical “marriage vow” pledge document released back in July by the FAMiLY Leader organization, the primary sponsor of the Thanksgiving Family Forum. This makes him eligible for an endorsement by FL and its would-be kingmaking founder, Bob Vander Plaats. It appears a battle has been going on for some time in Iowa’s influential social conservative circles between those wanting to get behind a “true believer” like Santorum or Bachmann and those preferring to give a crucial boost to acceptable if less fervent candidates like Perry or Gingrich. The outcome of this internal debate, which was apparently discussed in a private “summit” meeting on Monday, will play a very important role in shaping the endgame of the Iowa caucus contest—as will the decision by Mitt Romney as to whether or not he will fully commit to an Iowa campaign (he is opening a shiny new HQ in Des Moines, which some observers are interpreting as an “all-in” gesture).
Without question, it became abundantly clear during the last week that the “Gingrich surge” in the nomination contest is real, or at least as real as earlier booms for Bachmann, Perry and Cain. The last five big national polls of Republicans (PPP, Fox, USAToday/Gallup, Quinnipiac and CNN) have all showed Gingrich in the lead. The big question is whether and when his rivals choose to unleash a massive attack on the former Speaker based on their bulging oppo research files featuring whole decades of flip-flops, gaffes, failures and personal “issues.”
Interestingly, though, Gingrich may have already opened the door to suspicious wingnut scrutiny without any overt encouragement from his rivals. During the last week’s second major multi-candidate event, the CNN/AEI/Heritage “national security” debate last night, Gingrich may have ignored the lessons of the Perry campaign by risking his own moment of heresy on the hot-button issue of immigration, calling for a Selective Service model whereby some undocumented workers with exemplary records could obtain legal permanent status if not citizenship. He was immediately rapped by Romney and Bachmann for supporting “amnesty.” We’ll soon see if Newt’s long identification with the conservative movement and his more recent savagery towards “secular socialists” will give him protection from such attacks, or if his signature vice of hubris is once again about to smite him now that he’s finally become a viable candidate for president.
This article is part of a a series of international responses to 
