For the next 12 months, Americans will be in suspense waiting to find out who will win the presidential election and thus determine the fate of the nation for years to come. Too bad that by then, it may not matter so much.
That's partly because presidents must work within narrow confines established before they arrived. It's also because this month, a decision will be made that will have large and lasting consequences, for good or ill.
I refer to the vote by the congressional supercommittee assigned to find a way to reduce the deficit over the next decade. Its success could be a boon to the economy, the next generation of taxpayers, and the health of our democracy. But if you're a betting person, bet on failure.
The group, after all, is set up on the assumption that failure is a real possibility. It's charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts, but since membership is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, a majority vote for any package will be elusive if not impossible.
If they can't agree, a backup program will go into effect. Automatic cuts of nearly a trillion dollars would take place, coming mostly out of cuts in discretionary domestic spending and defense outlays.
The automatic cuts were imagined to be so excruciating that the supercommittee would have no choice but to agree on a plan. In reality, they are clearly the least painful option, making them hard for politicians to resist.
Doing nothing, which would trigger "sequestration," offers powerful attractions to both Republicans and Democrats. It gives Republicans their inviolable demand, because it doesn't raise taxes. It lets Democrats protect the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) they prize above all else. It lets both pretend to have done something about our swelling federal debt.
But will this option actually reduce expenditures in the programs affected? "No, no, no, no," replied Veronique de Rugy, a researcher at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, when I asked her. "Spending increases quite dramatically."
Defense outlays would rise by 18 percent over 10 years. Nondefense discretionary spending (for everything from education to national parks to law enforcement) would grow by 12 percent.
Besides, the automatic cuts are not carved in marble. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes those for defense. So does Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who says, "Congress is not bound by this"”it's something we passed; we can reverse it."
Other GOP senators and House members have come out for repealing the triggers. They may find plenty of allies among Democrats who want to hold domestic programs harmless.
Repudiating the whole budget plan right away might be too blatant for either party to embrace. But critics in Congress know that over time, it's not hard to find ways to circumvent, relax or scrap the original requirements.
That's the bad news. The worse news is that even if the supercommittee were to approve a plan, we would not be making progress, but merely buying time.
Cutting $1.2 trillion from the deficit over 10 years would mean the federal debt would continue to grow. The supercommittee, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, needs to double or triple the savings "to put debt on a clear, downward path by the end of the decade."
Getting that amount of deficit reduction would require each party to swallow something it abhors. For Republicans, it's tax changes to boost federal revenue. For Democrats, it's reductions in what retirees will get from Social Security and Medicare.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Times are harsh, which is why the Kochs can't pay even one more penny in federal taxes, especially not on their billions of dollars they will leave behind when they're dead.
Times are harsh, which is why the Kochs GE can't pay even one more single penny in federal taxes, especially not on their billions of dollars they will leave behind when they're dead of actual profit.
What makes you think I don't want GE to pay their fair share?
And who exactly is to decide what "fair" is?
I think we can all agree that "fair" would be more than 0%.
Nope.
Not if it was 0% for everyone.
What makes you think I don't want GE to pay their fair share?
Umm, because you gave me no reason to?
My GE stock is my hedge against a libertarian government.
That's not really a hedge. More like a forest.
But way to be a good little serf for your overlords, RC. Good boy, protect that billionaire wealth! Maybe someday (MAYBE!) it will trickle down on you. Or, that could just be them pissing on you.
...is only a trickle.
The real action is in the SUCK IT UP into higher, righter, and tighter hands.
And that's NOT a mere trickle.
You seem to be confusing wealth with money.
...and money with urine.
Times are harsh, which is why the Kochs GE Rangel can't pay even one more single penny in federal taxes unsubsidized rent , especially not on their his lobbyists billions of dollars they will leave behind when they're dead of actual profit. hopefully diptheria.
What makes you think I give a shit about Rangel? But he's a small fry compared to the Koch Bros., or the Mars Family (the latter are the billionaires behind the push to abolish the estate tax).
I wasn't talking to you.
Fuck the estate tax. Assets are not income until they are exchanged for money.
Blah blah, don't you mean fuck the agricultural city eSTATE tax which keeps us all bound to PRIVATION PROPERTY?
The corporate income tax rate is 35% and GE paid nothing - because they had zero taxable income IN THE US. Raise the rate from 35% to 99% and they'd still have paid $0 in US taxes. Cut the corporate tax rate to match Canada's 16% and corporate tax receipts would go up, as international companies would report more of their income in the US.
Right, because all that wealth is buried in the ground...
Surely having wealth go up Paris Hilton's nose is a far better use of it than building bridges and airports.
I prefer it be used to send scientists to Singapore to study the favorite sexual positions of drunken prostitutes.
CUZ R&D DOEZNT MATTAH IF DUNT UNDERSTANDZ IT! HER DERP WHATZ DA GUMMIT EVER RESEARCHED ANYWAYZ? ITZ ESPECIALLY FUNNY IF IT INVOLVES ANIMALZ, HAHA HERP DERP!
HAHA BEAR DNA! I MADEZ UH FUNNEEEZZ!!!!
Study this shit to your hearts content. But you don't have a right to my money as a means to that end. This may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you'll have to use your own capital to make your own investments.
I don't give a fuck about YOUR money. I'm talking about billionaires like the Kochs and Mars Family. But like a good little surf you'll stick up for them to the end so maybe it will "trickle down" someday. Maybe.
I'm talking about billionaires like the Kochs and Mars Family.
I swam in the Mars money vault as well. That one was much cleaner. It didn't give me a rash. I think they launder their money more often then the Kochs.
Read Full Article »