StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between

What Would Churchill Say About The Fiscal Cliff?

28 Nov 2012
Posted by Stan Collender

Here's what I said about Winston Churchill and the fiscal cliff in a just-published op-ed in the Financial Times.

 Rights and wrongs of the US fiscal cliff

By Stan Collender

Winston Churchill’s oft-quoted observation about America – always doing the right thing but only after it exhausts all the other options – is being tested as it deals with what US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke in February labelled the “fiscal cliff”.
Mr Bernanke coined that phrase to warn policy makers about the $600bn or so of tax increases and spending cuts that will go into effect on January 1 and 2 unless the US Congress and President Barack Obama enact legislation to stop them from happening. He was right to worry. The Congressional Budget Office and a number of Wall Street companies are projecting that in 2013 the US economy will fall back into recession and unemployment will rise above 9 per cent if we go over the cliff.
The “right thing” should not be hard to figure out. Certainly, the “wrong thing” is clear enough. The fiscal cliff would be the worst fiscal policy implemented in the US since the end of the Depression, when lawmakers put an austerity programme in place before the economy was ready and pushed the country back into recession. Rather than arguing about it, politicians should be rushing to take credit for preventing it from happening.
However, there are two reasons why the right thing isn’t as obvious as one might expect.
First, politics is as much a part of the fiscal cliff debate as economics. The election left the two major political parties more ideologically apart than they were before. The two sides are still figuring out what is right for them – rather than for the country – as they manoeuvre in a hyper-partisan environment few see ending any time soon.
Second, even if the politics were clearer, the optimum economic solution is not obvious. After the debt ceiling debacle of August 2011, the three leading credit rating agencies indicated that the success of the political system in dealing with the fiscal problems would be one of the major factors in determining whether the US was downgraded.
But it is worth asking whether, at least in the eyes of the rating agencies, going over the fiscal cliff would be a sign that Washington was solving America’s debt problems.
The tax increases and spending cuts would reduce the US debt-to-gross domestic product ratio, a favourite metric of the rating agencies. They could be seen as a political success because for a change policy makers would not have blinked when presented with an opportunity to increase taxes and cut spending.
So once again the US is left with a set of better and worse options, rather than a clear case of right and wrong. In the short run, the cliff should be avoided. A new recession when the US is still recovering from the last one, and when there are slowdowns in the eurozone and Asia, is too much to risk, no matter if the deficit is reduced. What matters is that any deal does not abandon the prospect of deficit reduction and decreased borrowing in the course of Mr Obama’s second term.
What, then, should a deal look like? First, the tax increases and spending cuts that are part of the fiscal cliff should be cancelled as soon as possible. In their place, a new plan needs to be considered that reduces the deficit and stabilises the debt when the US economy is better able to offset the impact of less government spending and higher taxation on both households and businesses.
Of course, such a delay carries large risks, given that political promises to do something later are typically less credible than actually reducing the deficit now. And, given that the promise to reduce the deficit in the future would be made after the fiscal cliff deficit reductions had been cancelled, a new promise might not be taken very seriously. That makes the strength of the agreement – including the kind of bipartisan support that has been so elusive in the US in the past few years – critical to making this work.
Which brings us back to Churchill. American policy makers once again may prove him insightful and do the right thing when it comes to the fiscal cliff. But the process of getting there is just as likely to prove him correct about how long it is going to take for whatever is “right” to emerge from the debate.



Congrats on scoring this space. Good piece, too.

More both sides do it nonsense

The two sides are still figuring out what is right for them – rather than for the country – as they manoeuvre in a hyper-partisan environment few see ending any time soon.

That's complete garbage. It is very, very clear that one side is holding the entire process hostage to preserve tax cuts for the rich and very rich, which are the only two groups that have done well economically over the past 10 years. But there is no evidence that a lower top marginal rate increases growth, and plenty of evidence that a lower top marginal rate blows a nice hole in the budget, so there is no justifiable reason for the Republicans to refuse to give on this issue. And, remember, the top rate will only increase to 39.5%. That is a rate that has been proven to be entirely compatible with solid economic growth.

Look, if you really think the two sides are symmetrical on this issue - or just about any other policy issue, for that matter - you are simply unable to process reality properly, and you should probably stop commenting on it.

Recent comments


Order from Amazon


Creative Commons LicenseThe content of is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.