Advertisement

Fiscal Cliff Deal Endangers Entitlements

By James Kwak, The Atlantic - January 2, 2013

James Kwak - James Kwak, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, is co-author of White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You. More

Democrats maneuvered themselves into making the Bush tax cuts permanent, putting Medicare and Social Security at risk in the long run

Reuters

Decades from now, January 1, 2013 will be remembered sealed the fate of Medicare--as well as Medicaid, food stamps, and perhaps even Social Security.

The tax bill passed by Congress this weekend rolls back the Bush tax cuts for income above $450,000 for households but makes them permanent below that threshold. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smiling ... if he realizes that he won.

There are two frames in which to view the current battle over the "fiscal cliff." One is short-term: limiting the damage to an already weak economy. The other is long-term: determining the overall shape of the federal government for decades to come.

In the short term, Democrats should be largely happy with the compromise hammered out by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell. They got more or less what Obama wanted (except that households between $250,000 and $450,000 will be protected just like the "middle class"), including extended unemployment benefits. Since the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts (in dollar terms) are not going away, the biggest negative shock to the economy should be averted.

From the perspective of future historians, though, W. won. Sure, the deal doesn't include any explicit cuts to the social insurance or safety net programs that are dear to Democrats' hearts. But somehow the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson forgot that spending has to be paid for.

The ability of the federal government to protect its citizens against the risks of old age and disability is determined by its tax revenue. Yes, the government can get by for a decade or two by running deficits and financing them through the bond market. But we will not be able to pay for increasing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid outlays solely with borrowed money forever. In the long run, these programs can only be sustained in their current form if we pay the taxes necessary to sustain them.

The primary purpose of the Bush tax cuts was to defund the federal government. Because they were the Bush tax cuts, they did so in a way that overwhelmingly favored the rich, notably by cutting taxes on investment income and on estates. But their more important effect was to slash tax revenues and increase deficits.

President Bush didn't have votes to make his tax cuts permanent. So now President Obama solved that problem for him. Yes, Obama has made the overall package somewhat more progressive, by restoring late Clinton-era tax rates for the very, very rich. (What else do you call households that make more than $450,000 per year, after exemptions and deductions?) But while the Bush tax cuts would have cost the federal government $4.5 trillion over the next decade, the Obama tax cuts of 2013 will instead cost the government $3.6 trillion. (Both figures exclude associated interest costs.) In other words, the tax "increases" on the rich are only restoring 20 percent of the government revenues that Bush took away.

Most importantly, those tax cuts are now permanent. This isn't just a temporary stimulus measure; this is for keeps. And given the current political dynamic, where concern about the national debt has been translated by conservative Republicans into a prohibition against tax increases, raising taxes will be virtually impossible in the foreseeable future.

The bizarre thing is that Democrats maneuvered themselves into the position of becoming the champions of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Of course the Republicans wanted to make them all permanent, but they didn't have the votes or the White House. The president and his party could have pushed for a temporary extension for economic reasons--and if the economy was their top priority, they should at least have tried to extend the payroll tax cut, which would have provided the most bang for the buck. Instead, they locked in the lower tax levels that conservatives have been dreaming about for decades.

Low tax levels mean large deficits, a growing national debt, and increasing pressure to cut "entitlement programs"--meaning first and foremost Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (Think about this: If we had not run huge deficits as a result of the financial crisis, would Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program have been received as anything but a fringe idea?) The Republican veto against tax increases means that either these programs will be scaled back, or the debt will escalate to the point of fiscal crisis--and then these programs will be slashed.

For decades, conservatives have been trying to "starve the beast"--choke off the federal government's revenue stream so that rising deficits would force Congress to cut spending. They just got a big help.

Share Email Print Presented by //'); //]]> // More at The Atlantic How John Boehner Finally Got a Fiscal-Cliff Deal to Obama A New Year's Spike in Overdoses What About the Other Amendments? Why Does Buddhist Meditation Lead to Happiness? Joe Biden: The Most Influential Vice President in History? //"; document.write(str); } //]]> //'); //]]> // Join the Discussion After you comment, click Post. If you're not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. /* * * CONFIGURATION VARIABLES: EDIT BEFORE PASTING INTO YOUR WEBPAGE * * */ var disqus_shortname = 'theatlantic'; // required: replace example with your forum shortname var disqus_developer = 0; var disqus_identifier = 'mt266758'; var disqus_title = 'Goodbye, Medicare: How the Fiscal-Cliff Deal Endangers U.S. Entitlements'; /* * * DON'T EDIT BELOW THIS LINE * * */ (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = 'http://' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })(); Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus James Kwak's Archive Recent Posts All Entries Current Week Previous Week By Source All Sources Magazine Articles Blog Articles By Date var baseLocation = '/james-kwak/'; $('.filterArchive').show(); window.addthis_title = "Goodbye, Medicare: How the Fiscal-Cliff Deal Endangers U.S. Entitlements - The Atlantic"; cssFixes() Special Report 2013: The Year Ahead What to expect in politics, music, the economy, and beyond Read more › (function () { var $reports = $('#special-promo-modules .promoModule'); var num = Math.floor(Math.random()*$reports.length); if (num != 0) { $($reports[0]).hide(); $($reports[num]).show(); } })(); //'); //]]> // Writers Jeffrey Goldberg What the Likud's 14th-Ranked Knesset Candidate… 2:10 PM ET Alexis C. Madrigal A Computational Model of the Human Heart 11:51 AM ET Derek Thompson Fiscal Cliff Deal FAQ: What Just Happened and… 10:17 AM ET Ta-Nehisi Coates Barack Obama's Second First Term 10:15 AM ET Robert Wright Podcasts to Try in 2013 Dec 31, 2012 Steve Clemons Reading Tea Leaves of Political Appointments Not… Dec 28, 2012 Garance Franke-Ruta Leave 'Thelma & Louise' Alone Dec 28, 2012 James Fallows The Surprisingly Tangled Politics of 'Gun Safety,… Dec 26, 2012 Clive Crook Two Book Recommendations Dec 21, 2012 The Biggest Story in Photos A Look Inside North Korea Jan 2, 2013 Subscribe Now SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

STATE AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY YT

Subscribe

Facebook Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

This Week on TheAtlantic.com (sample)

This Month in The Atlantic (sample)

Today's Top Stories on The Atlantic.com (sample)

New from In Focus: (sample)

5 Best Columns from The Atlantic Wire (sample)

Daily Newsletter from The Atlantic Cities (sample)

I want to receive updates from our partners and sponsors

Most Popular 1 The Strangest Conservative Priority: Prepping a '2nd Amendment Solution' 2 These 2 Tax Charts Tell You Exactly Who Won the Fiscal Cliff Deal 3 Goodbye, Medicare: How the Fiscal-Cliff Deal Endangers U.S. Entitlements 4 Fiscal Cliff Deal FAQ: What Just Happened and What It Means For You 5 Amnesia and the Self That Remains When Memory Is Lost 6 Why Everyone Hates the Fiscal-Cliff Deal 7 A Look Inside North Korea 8 The Problem With All of This 'Overweight People Live Longer' News 9 Russia's Tumultous Year to Come 10 New Year's Resolution: Learn How to Throw a Punch ATLANTIC MEDIA Atlantic Wire Why Is Eric Schmidt Going to North Korea? The Spartan Life of Tumblr's David Karp iPhone's Y2K13 Do-Not-Disturb Bug Still Isn't Fixed

More from Atlantic Wire

Atlantic Cities 'Criminals Should Be Punished' What City Skies Would Look Like Without Light Pollution Will Avis Destroy Zipcar?

More from Atlantic Cities

Quartz Why the fiscal cliff deal offers little to celebrate The fiscal cliff in New Year's resolutions: I resolve to panic less about economic crises Why the 49% premium Avis paid for Zipcar is a bargain

More from Quartz

National Journal 2012 in Review: Perspectives on The Next America 10 Stories From Around The Next America for Jan. 2 Study: Blacks and Latinos Take Longer to Complete STEM Doctoral Degrees

More from National Journal

Elsewhere on the web Sponsored Links var OB_permalink = "http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/goodbye-medicare-how-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-endangers-us-entitlements/266758"; var OB_Template="atlantic"; var OB_widgetId= 'HPC'; var OB_langJS ='http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' ) OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = ""; document.write(str); } Follow The Atlantic App store Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google Plus Tumblr RSS E-Newsletters Today's Top Stories This Week This Month New at In Focus Atlantic Cities 5 Best Columns Information FAQ Subscribe Help Masthead Store Merchandise Jobs Privacy Site Map Terms and Conditions Advertise Press Contact Us Special Reports Atlantic Scene Events Atlantic Media Company Subscribe Get 10 issues a year and save 65% off the cover price STATE AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY YT Next ► Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved. CDN powered by Edgecast Networks. Insights powered by Parsely . (function( ){ BF_WIDGET_JS=document.createElement("script"); BF_WIDGET_JS.type="text/javascript"; BF_WIDGET_SRC="http://ct.buzzfeed.com/wd/UserWidget?u=theatlantic.com&to=1&or=vb&wid=1&cb=" + (new Date()).getTime(); setTimeout(function() {document.getElementById("BF_WIDGET_1").appendChild(BF_WIDGET_JS);BF_WIDGET_JS.src=BF_WIDGET_SRC},1); })(); // // Powered by the Parse.ly Publisher Platform (P3). (function(s, p, d) { var h=d.location.protocol, i=p+"-"+s, e=d.getElementById(i), r=d.getElementById(p+"-root"), u=h==="https:"?"d1z2jf7jlzjs58.cloudfront.net" :"static."+p+".com"; if (e) return; e = d.createElement(s); e.id = i; e.async = true; e.src = h+"//"+u+"/p.js"; r.appendChild(e); })("script", "parsely", document); // var _vrq = _vrq || []; _vrq.push(['id', 209]); _vrq.push(['automate', window.location.pathname === '/']); _vrq.push(['track', function(){}]); (function(d, a){ var s = d.createElement(a), x = d.getElementsByTagName(a)[0]; s.async = true; s.src = 'http://a.visualrevenue.com/vrs.js'; x.parentNode.insertBefore(s, x); })(document, 'script'); (function () { var d = new Image(1, 1); d.onerror = d.onload = function () { d.onerror = d.onload = null; }; d.src = ["//secure-us.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/m?ci=us-906344h&cg=0&cc=1&si=", escape(window.location.href), "&rp=", escape(document.referrer), "&ts=compact&rnd=", (new Date()).getTime()].join(''); })();

Democrats maneuvered themselves into making the Bush tax cuts permanent, putting Medicare and Social Security at risk in the long run

Decades from now, January 1, 2013 will be remembered sealed the fate of Medicare--as well as Medicaid, food stamps, and perhaps even Social Security.

The tax bill passed by Congress this weekend rolls back the Bush tax cuts for income above $450,000 for households but makes them permanent below that threshold. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smiling ... if he realizes that he won.

There are two frames in which to view the current battle over the "fiscal cliff." One is short-term: limiting the damage to an already weak economy. The other is long-term: determining the overall shape of the federal government for decades to come.

In the short term, Democrats should be largely happy with the compromise hammered out by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell. They got more or less what Obama wanted (except that households between $250,000 and $450,000 will be protected just like the "middle class"), including extended unemployment benefits. Since the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts (in dollar terms) are not going away, the biggest negative shock to the economy should be averted.

From the perspective of future historians, though, W. won. Sure, the deal doesn't include any explicit cuts to the social insurance or safety net programs that are dear to Democrats' hearts. But somehow the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson forgot that spending has to be paid for.

The ability of the federal government to protect its citizens against the risks of old age and disability is determined by its tax revenue. Yes, the government can get by for a decade or two by running deficits and financing them through the bond market. But we will not be able to pay for increasing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid outlays solely with borrowed money forever. In the long run, these programs can only be sustained in their current form if we pay the taxes necessary to sustain them.

The primary purpose of the Bush tax cuts was to defund the federal government. Because they were the Bush tax cuts, they did so in a way that overwhelmingly favored the rich, notably by cutting taxes on investment income and on estates. But their more important effect was to slash tax revenues and increase deficits.

President Bush didn't have votes to make his tax cuts permanent. So now President Obama solved that problem for him. Yes, Obama has made the overall package somewhat more progressive, by restoring late Clinton-era tax rates for the very, very rich. (What else do you call households that make more than $450,000 per year, after exemptions and deductions?) But while the Bush tax cuts would have cost the federal government $4.5 trillion over the next decade, the Obama tax cuts of 2013 will instead cost the government $3.6 trillion. (Both figures exclude associated interest costs.) In other words, the tax "increases" on the rich are only restoring 20 percent of the government revenues that Bush took away.

Most importantly, those tax cuts are now permanent. This isn't just a temporary stimulus measure; this is for keeps. And given the current political dynamic, where concern about the national debt has been translated by conservative Republicans into a prohibition against tax increases, raising taxes will be virtually impossible in the foreseeable future.

The bizarre thing is that Democrats maneuvered themselves into the position of becoming the champions of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Of course the Republicans wanted to make them all permanent, but they didn't have the votes or the White House. The president and his party could have pushed for a temporary extension for economic reasons--and if the economy was their top priority, they should at least have tried to extend the payroll tax cut, which would have provided the most bang for the buck. Instead, they locked in the lower tax levels that conservatives have been dreaming about for decades.

Low tax levels mean large deficits, a growing national debt, and increasing pressure to cut "entitlement programs"--meaning first and foremost Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (Think about this: If we had not run huge deficits as a result of the financial crisis, would Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program have been received as anything but a fringe idea?) The Republican veto against tax increases means that either these programs will be scaled back, or the debt will escalate to the point of fiscal crisis--and then these programs will be slashed.

For decades, conservatives have been trying to "starve the beast"--choke off the federal government's revenue stream so that rising deficits would force Congress to cut spending. They just got a big help.

STATE AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY YT

Subscribe

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

This Week on TheAtlantic.com (sample)

This Month in The Atlantic (sample)

Today's Top Stories on The Atlantic.com (sample)

New from In Focus: (sample)

5 Best Columns from The Atlantic Wire (sample)

Daily Newsletter from The Atlantic Cities (sample)

Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »