Posts Tagged ‘ Deficits and debt ’

STATEMENT: PPI Warns of Rigid Ideologues on Supercommittee

Thursday, August 4th, 2011
The Progressive Policy Institute





by The Progressive Policy Institute

PRESS CONTACT: Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

WASHINGTON D.C. –PPI issued the following statement on the new congressional “supercommittee”:

“The composition of the congressional supercommittee gives leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives a unique opportunity to forge a bipartisan plan for deficit reduction. PPI encourages both Democratic and Republican congressional leadership to appoint pragmatic members and give them the political flexibility needed to make difficult sacrifices that put our country’s future before partisan interest.

“If the supercommittee is composed of rigid ideologues who staunchly refuse to compromise on increased tax revenues or reformed entitlement programs, this week’s legislation will trigger unnecessary cuts to discretionary and defense spending. PPI fears these draconian cuts would further weaken our economy, sacrifice overdue investments in infrastructure and education, and cripple our military. Failure to compromise on the deficit’s biggest drivers–entitlements and taxes–should not jeopardize these national priorities.”

# # #

Rebuilding America Is Job One

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Rebuilding AmericaAmid the high drama of fiscal brinkmanship in Washington, it’s easy to forget that reducing budget deficits isn’t the biggest economic challenge we face. Even more important is kick-starting the great American job machine and reversing our country’s slide in global competition.

Critical to both goals is shoring up the decaying physical foundations of national prosperity. Without world-class infrastructure, the United States won’t be able to attract private investment, sustain rapid technological innovation and productivity growth, or keep good jobs from going overseas.

According to a new Gallup poll, general economic concerns (35 percent) and unemployment (22 percent) top voters list of worries, with federal deficits and debt a distant third at 12 percent. Fiscal restraint is important, but it must be balanced against the larger imperatives of jobs and global competition. Among other things, this means leaving room for public investment to replenish the nation’s stock of physical capital.

America can’t build a more dynamic and globally competitive economy on the legacy infrastructure of the 20th Century. Thanks to their parents’ far-sighted public investments, baby boomers grew up in a country that set the world standard for modern infrastructure. But after a generation of underinvestment, compounded by politicized spending decisions, we now face a massive infrastructure deficit that exerts a severe drag on U.S. productivity.

Meanwhile, China and other fast-rising countries are building gleaming new airports and bullet trains. To keep from falling farther behind, the United States needs to make large-scale capital investments in repairing decrepit roads and bridges; upgrading air and sea ports; building “intelligent” transportation systems and smart energy grids; modernizing the air traffic control system; speeding up our pokey rail networks; and leading the world in deploying ultra-fast broadband.

But with the government strapped for cash, it’s reasonable to ask where the money to rebuild America will come from. The answer is that we need to look more to the private sector. U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion in idle cash, and pension funds, overseas investors and sovereign wealth funds also are looking for places to invest. Although the federal government will have to put up seed capital, its main role should be to leverage private investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure.

That’s why America needs a National Infrastructure Bank. As proposed by the bipartisan trio of Senators John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Mark Warner, the bank would use a modest, one-time appropriation of $10 billion to leverage enormous investments — $640 billion over 10 years — for projects with the greatest potential to put Americans to work and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

President Obama has repeatedly endorsed a national infrastructure bank and proposed the idea again in the budget he sent to Congress in February. But the Senate bill (and a separate House proposal championed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro) have decided advantages over President Obama’s proposal. The president’s approach starts with a smart idea to create programs that work more with the private sector to find financing solutions. But unlike the Kerry proposal, it does not focus enough on the most powerful tools for leveraging private investment: loan programs that include a reasonable cap on the federal share of project costs. Obama’s bank would also be housed within the Department of Transportation, whereas the Kerry bill would make the bank an independent, quasi-public entity. That’s an important difference, because to attract hard-headed capitalists who expect a real economic return on their investments, the government’s financing facility must be genuinely free of political interference.

An independent infrastructure bank would select projects based on their ability to generate real economic returns rather than their influential political patrons. As a self-sustaining entity that would not rely on future appropriations from Congress, the bank would not be subject to the pork barreling and earmarking that distorts federal and state infrastructure spending, especially on transportation.

It’s time to get serious about our dilemma: the U.S. economy is creating too few jobs to bring down unemployment to pre-recession levels. For that, we’d need nearly 12 million new jobs, or about 100,000 more on average than the 200,000 the economy is creating each month. Big capital projects would immediately create those jobs where they are most desperately needed–in the hard-hit construction industry, which is still struggling with a 20 percent unemployment rate.

In the short run, a big national push to build modern infrastructure could create high-skill jobs that can’t be exported. In the long run, it will ensure America’s return to being an engine of production, not just a global center for consumption. That’s why, as Congress struggles to contain federal deficits and debt, it needs to make room for a National Infrastructure Bank to rebuild America.

This item is cross-posted at the Huffington Post.

Do We Need a Third Party to Fix Deficits?

Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Republicans are crying foul over Democrats’ resort to “Mediscare” tactics to win an open House seat in New York. Democrats are chortling because they think the GOP’s heretofore unstoppable austerity offensive may have met its Stalingrad.

All this is diverting to aficionados of partisan thrust-and-parry in Washington. But the rest of the country may be less amused. By adhering to unbending, absolutist positions on Medicare and taxes, could Democrats and Republicans be cracking open the door to a serious third party challenge in 2012?

On Tuesday, Democrat Kathy Hochul won a traditionally Republican House seat in upstate New York in a special election. She relentlessly linked her GOP opponent to Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan for making deep cuts in Medicare while preserving the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Many Democrats now see this as the winning formula for next year’s elections.

Ryan complained yesterday that Democrats are “shamelessly demagoguing and distorting” his plan. It was hard to feel any sympathy for the earnest House Budget Commission chairman, however, since Republicans in 2010 spent millions on ads shamelessly blasting Democratic candidates for backing the proposed Medicare cuts in Obamacare. There’s actual double hypocrisy at work here, since Ryan’s Medicare proposal works through the same health exchanges Republicans find so objectionable in Obama’s plan.

Being called a demagogue by the party of death panels and death taxes is like being called ugly by a crab.

Nonetheless, Democrats need to resist the temptation to pay back their opponents in kind. They need to retain the flexibility to slow down Medicare’s cost growth, which as Bill Clinton said yesterday at the Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit, is the sine qua non of any serious proposal to reduce federal deficits and debt.

Medicare spending is by far the biggest driver of federal spending growth. Together with Social Security, it represents nearly one-third of federal spending. According to the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, the government is slated to transfer over $3.4 trillion in general revenues to Medicare by 2020. This problem needs to be tackled now, even if it complicates Democrats’ ability to run on “Medagoguery” in 2012.

Meanwhile, “progressives” aren’t helping by running a ridiculously over-the-top ad showing a Ryan look-alike pitching a wheelchair-bound granny off a cliff. True progressives believe in solving the nation’s core dilemmas, not fetishizing the status quo. Cutting the nation’s debts down to manageable size will require both higher revenues and lower rates of entitlement spending growth.

If Democrats and Republicans can’t produce a fix along these lines, they practically invite the 2012 version of Ross Perot into the race.

PPI EVENT: Tax Reform Now

Monday, April 11th, 2011
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

With April 15 just around the corner, PPI and Moment of Truth, and a bipartisan cast of U.S. Senators, are joining forces to call for the most sweeping overhaul of federal taxes since 1986.

Moment of Truth was formed by Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Sen. Alan Simpson to build momentum behind the commission’s deficit reduction plan. At the heart of that plan is the “modified zero plan,” which would eliminate or scale back tax expenditures, and use the savings to cut individual and corporate tax rates, as well as budget deficits.

In addition to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a leading voice for restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Daniel Coats (R-Ind.) will be on hand to discuss their new bill, which would also close tax loopholes to finance lower rates and deficits.

Both approaches embrace the “broaden the tax base, bring down tax rates” logic of the last great tax reform in 1986. PPI also will release a new report by Paul Weinstein, a key architect of the “modified zero plan,” on how the plan sparked a bipartisan breakthrough on the commission, and on how the plan could be further refined and strengthened.

The April 12 forum, to be held at Johns Hopkins University’s Washington campus, will also feature prominent budget and tax experts. Click here to see the whole program and RSVP.

Framing the Fiscal Battle

Monday, January 3rd, 2011
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Republicans are convinced they have a mandate to cut government down to size. That’s hard to do when you only control one House of Congress, and harder still when your fiscal plans are fraught with internal contradictions.

It’s not even clear, for instance, what Republicans really want to accomplish. Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, delivering the GOP’s weekly address Jan. 1, said that “Job one is to stop wasteful Washington spending.” At the same time, she said that “Congress must get serious about meaningful debt reduction.”

So which is it—cut public spending or cut public deficits? That’s a distinction with a difference, especially to investors worried about the basic soundness of the U.S. economy. To them, deficits are simply the arithmetic result of government spending too much, taxing too little or both, as is clearly the case today. Last month, Republicans struck a deal with President Obama on a tax cut package that will add $950 billion to the nation’s debts. Key GOP House leaders have made it clear they will oppose any tax hikes to solve the budget crisis, which they pretend is purely a matter of overspending.

Ayotte seemed closer to the mark in saying Republicans come to Washington to “make government smaller, not bigger.” In practice, however, that ideological goal may not be compatible with what the public seems to want. Independent voters especially have focused on narrowing the enormous deficits that force America to get deeper and deeper in hock to Chinese and other foreign lenders.

And if Republicans are serious about taking taxes off the table, they’ll have to make even deeper cuts in public spending—including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—to close our yawning budget gaps. It will be interesting to see which GOP bravos are willing to walk that plank. Thus far, House Republicans are proposing only cosmetic cuts, like trimming the House budget by $25 million. It’s a good idea for the House to discipline its own spending, but in a $3 trillion budget, that’s chump change.

Meanwhile, the GOP is planning to vitiate budget caps imposed by the previous Congress. Under the caps, any new spending or tax cuts would have to be offset by equivalent spending cuts or tax hikes. Republicans would eliminate the later requirement, so that tax cuts too would trigger deeper spending cuts. This of course is a formula for a deepening fiscal crisis and intensifying polarization between the two parties. And House Republicans will take a run at repealing Obamacare, which would certainly reduce federal spending but actually increase future budget gaps. In any event, it’s not happening

Some of the more fervid Tea Party types are even threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling in March if Democrats don’t agree to new spending cuts. If they are serious, this could mean America would default on its debts for the first time in history. It would be, as Obama’s chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said yesterday, an act of political insanity, the equivalent of taking yourself hostage and threatening to shoot.

Finally, there’s the crucial question of timing. Incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan reportedly is planning a package or rescissions aimed at cutting about 21 percent from 2011 spending Congress approved last year. The aim is to return domestic spending to its 2008 level, before Obama took office.

The risk is that withdrawing a significant chunk of fiscal stimulus could abort an economic recovery that at last seems to be getting traction. There’s no question that Americans want to restore fiscal discipline in Washington, but what they want even more is for the economy to grow and unemployment to start falling.

Goolsbee hinted that Obama’s next budget also will contain some spending cuts. But the GOP’s ideological zeal to cut government gives Obama an opportunity to offer a more pragmatic approach that puts jobs growth first, while taking balanced and gradual steps to put the federal government on a fiscally sustainable course.

Progressives do need to get serious about getting federal spending under control. But by framing the coming fiscal battles as a choice between a more robust economy and a smaller government, they can speak directly to Americans’ number one priority and thereby regain the political initiative.

What to Look For in 2011

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The 111th Congress is still a few days from concluding, but with Saturday’s Senate vote repealing the military’s Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy, it can boast a record of progressive accomplishment that may give pause to liberal critics of the Obama administration.  Ratification of the START treaty just before Christmas would be a nice capper before the difficult period begins with the Republican takeover of the House and the official burial of any filibuster-proof Democratic Senate Majority.

Since this is my last memo for 2010, it’s as good time as any to examine the political mood of the country going into 2011.

It’s worth noting that there’s really no consensus interpretation of what ultimately happened in the midterm elections.  Democrats remain divided between those who view the November setback as primarily a structural phenomenon attributable to a bad economy and inevitable shifts in the turnout patterns, and those who believe strategic and tactical errors by the President and congressional leaders invited the defeat. Liberal activist criticism of Obama for his conciliatory public attitude towards Republicans, conservative Democrats, and “big business,” while familiar to anyone who remembers the Clinton years, reached a sharp new point near the end of the year, nearly producing a revolt in the House against the Obama-McConnell tax deal.

But it’s unclear whether this hostility among opinion-leaders is widely shared in the actual “base” of Democratic voters.  The latest Gallup tracking poll does show Obama’s job approval rating among self-identified liberal Democrats dipping below 80 percent for the first time, but 79 percent approval is still a pretty high number. Anyone fantasizing about a left-bent primary challenge to the president should look at last week’s Magellan poll of NH, which showed Obama trouncing any potential rival there, even though it should be one of his weakest states.

Republicans, meanwhile, have largely taken a triumphalist view of the midterms as indicating a conscious conservative “turn” in the electorate that has rejected Obama, Pelosi and their “socialist” policies.  The major topic of dissension among conservative commentators is whether the risk to be most avoided is an ideological rigidity that prevents Republicans from taking advantage of Democratic missteps, or instead a return to the “big government conservatism” and ideological laxity that, in their view, doomed the Bush administration.

Since the air is often full of warnings to party leaders from both sides of the spectrum against compromise with the satanic opposition, it’s interesting to look a little more deeply at Democratic and Republican attitudes on the subject of bipartisanship.  A recent analysis by Pollster.com’s Mark Blumenthal reaches the striking conclusion that poll numbers showing high public support for “compromise” can be misleading:

For many partisans, “compromise” is really a disguised expression of partisanship. They want to see the leaders of both parties working together, but mostly in support of their preferred policies. A larger number of Democrats — a third to half — are open to their leaders compromising with the Republicans, and that difference helps tilt the overall numbers in favor of compromise.

In other words, support for “compromise” is lower than it looks, but for all the progressive angst about Obama betraying his base, he appears to have more maneuverability when it comes to compromise than does his Republican counterparts.  Certainly the base-dominated 2012 presidential nominating process is likely to exert a strong rightward influence on the GOP.

Five key things to look for early next year:

  • Most obviously, the economy: Is it recovering in a way that will be tangible to voters in 2012? Will Republicans at the federal and/or state levels take actions that essentially sabotage recovery by depressing consumer demand?
  • Redistricting: How aggressively will Republicans pursue their midterm advantage in the states, and how much leeway will courts give them in legislative gerrymandering?
  • The deficit debate: Will it develop in a way that encourages cooperation at the risk of premature austerity policies, or that sharpens partisan differences?
  • Afghanistan: The one thing that could turn liberal grumbling about Obama into serious intraparty opposition would be the perception that he’s dragging his feet on withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
  • Republicans: Will the GOP finally secure visible leadership that helps rather than hurt the party’s political prospects?  Can they do better than McConnell and Boehner, Gingrich and Palin?

The dynamics of the 2012 election cycle will depend on all five of these factors, aside from the nuts and bolts of money and organization and candidate personalities.  Whether the two parties—or barring that, the president alone via executive action—can accomplish much while jockeying for future position is another question entirely.

Playing Out the End of the Lame Duck Congress

Friday, December 17th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The end-game of this congressional session has suddenly come alive with developments that could have a major political impact down the road, if not sooner.

Last night’s House approval of the Obama-McConnell tax deal is a case in point.  The White House survived its most emotional collision yet with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and managed to secure a majority (139-112) of House Democratic votes for the deal, despite an earlier Democratic Caucus resolution disapproving it.  It’s probably worth remembering that in his own disputes with House Democrats, Bill Clinton wasn’t always so successful: majorities of House Democrats voted against NAFTA in 1993 and welfare reform in 1996.

If you look through the roll call on the tax deal, the Democratic votes are generally not surprising: most “nays” came from the more liberal Members, including, interestingly enough, all members of the leadership other than Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (who didn’t vote).  There was, however, a smattering of deficit hawks among the naysayers.  The vast majority of true “lame ducks” (defeated or retiring Members) voted for the deal.

Approval of the deal will obviously create another big tax debate during the 2012 presidential campaign.  But more immediately, it will be interesting to see to what extent the deal and the debate over it has set back efforts to build bipartisan support for deficit reduction measures.  Without question, congressional Republicans will now be under more pressure than ever to cut “liberal” spending programs, but the very limited Democratic support for such steps probably got a lot weaker during the tax deal debate.

That brings me to the other big development yesterday: the defeat-by-threatened-filibuster in the Senate of an omnibus appropriations bill for the current fiscal year.  This outcome resulted from no fewer than nine Republican senators reversing earlier support for the bill, and was very heavily influenced by publicity over earmarks—many inserted by Republican senators—which is now officially a no-no for Republicans.

Tea Party types were actually upset not just by the earmarks, but by overall levels of spending.  And Republicans may have bought themselves some early trouble: after a short-term continuing resolution, they will bear new responsibility for drafting a House version of either individual or omnibus appropriations bills, and will finally have to admit that items more popular than waste, fraud and abuse would have to be cut to produce sizable savings.

On the other hand, as David Dayen has pointed out, by losing the omnibus appropriations fight, Democrats could have set the table for undoing the stimulative effect of the tax deal.  If Republicans succeed in securing major appropriations cuts—say, an across-the-board reduction attached to a continuing resolution—then that could indeed reduce aggregate demand, particularly in conjunction with the wide-scale spending reductions that will soon be initiated by state governments who can no longer count on the safety net dollars of the 2009 stimulus legislation.

Other bills kicking around the Senate at the end of this session also carry a lot of political freight: the DREAM Act, which was once an acceptable Republican vehicle for offering a hand in fellowship to Latinos, yet is now an opportunity for casting an angry anti-immigrant vote; the DADT repeal, which is inevitable, but is also still a source of great angst in Christian Right circles; and the START Treaty, which could determine whether anything like a bipartisan foreign policy can be carried out in today’s polarized atmosphere.

We’ll know a lot more after a frenetic weekend that could feature a DADT vote on Sunday.

The Remarkable Inability of Americans to Support Their Deficit-Cutting Aspirations

Wednesday, December 15th, 2010
Lee Drutman



Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

In the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, released today, contains a remarkable though not surprising finding. Americans may profess to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit. But when it comes to solutions, not a single one of the nine major proposals to cut the federal budget receives majority support.

The same disconnect jumps out from a Pew poll released last week. An impressive 93 percent agree that the federal deficit budget is a major problem, and 70 percent say it must be addressed now (the other 23 percent think it needs to be addressed when the economy gets better). Yet only two of 12 proposals to reduce the deficit received majority support.

Like St. Augustine asking for “chastity and continence, but not yet,” the American public knows that the current budget deficit of almost $14 trillion is downright sinful. But actually doing something about it, well, hold on a minute now buddy, you can’t raise my taxes or cut any of these important programs! Certainly not now!

In the Pew poll, the only two things that receive majority support are raising the Social Security contribution cap (64 percent) and freezing salaries for federal workers (59 percent). Obama’s already on top of the pay freeze.  He estimates it could save approximately $5 billion over two years, cutting the deficit to a much more manageable $13.995 trillion.

Reducing Social Security for high-income seniors wins the approval of 48 percent of respondents in the Pew poll, and 49 percent of respondents in the Post/ABC poll. Reducing defense spending gets 43 percent approval in the Pew poll and 44 percent approval in the Post/ABC poll. The most widely unpopular proposal was increasing the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon. Only 22 percent of respondents in the Pew poll and 21 percent of respondents in the Post poll approved.

Interestingly, Pew broke down the figures for Tea Party supporters, 84 percent of whom say that the federal deficit is a major problem that the country needs to address now. Yet, on seven of the 12 deficit reduction proposals, Tea Party supporters are less supportive the proposals than the general public. Again, that is LESS supportive! The only deficit reduction proposal with majority support among Tea Partiers is the aforementioned federal salary freeze (at 74 percent). And the only other to receive majority support is reducing Social Security for high-income seniors (by a narrow margin of 50-48 percent).

In a recent P-Fix post, Elbert Ventura noted that “Americans may profess to hate European-style states, but the disconnect between their hatred of taxes and love of benefits may well hasten the day of a European-style collapse.”

This is spot on. The disconnect is downright maddening. I want to shake some of these people, show them the federal ledger, and say: Here is the reality. If we want to make a dent in the deficit, we are going to have to make some choices that involve real tax increases and real cuts to benefit programs. There is no more free lunch. We can pretend that somewhere there is a $10 trillion line item labeled “waste” that politicians are conspiring to protect, or we can have an intelligent conversation about this. If we stay in a fantasy world, the inevitable reckoning is going to be a lot more painful.

Now, if only there were some political leader out there with the courage to say something like that. Because this is one of those issues where the public is simply not going to come around on its own. Sure, perhaps better economic times would make some respondents slightly more willing to see higher taxes or reduced benefits. But real sacrifice, real hard decisions? That’s going to take political leadership. Any takers?

Photo credit: mchmlbrk

Will the Tax Compromise Stick?

Friday, December 10th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

It’s been one of those weeks in Washington.  Just a few days ago, it appeared the tax deal between the president and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had broken the lame-duck session logjam, resolving the stickiest problem and paving the way for late-session action on issues like DADT and START.

Now votes on the tax deal have been pushed into next week amidst a resolution of disapproval by House Democrats, and the DADT repeal has lost a key Senate floor vote once again.

It’s hard to say whether the President’s very early signals that he’d be willing to strike a deal to avoid the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts made the ultimate liberal backlash more understandable or puzzling.  The only surprises in the final deal were the inclusion of a payroll tax holiday, the one stimulative proposal with significant support in both parties; extension of the enhanced EITC and child tax credits created in the 2009 stimulus package, a total concession to Democrats; and revisions in the resurrected federal estate tax—which didn’t exist in this calendar year—to create lower rates and higher exclusions than was the case before the Bush tax cuts first took place.

Some progressives (though not many) profess to oppose the payroll tax holiday on grounds that it’s part of a collateral attack on Social Security.  Some also express moral outrage over the proposed estate tax concessions, pointing out (quite properly) that they will have zero positive impact on investment and growth.  But the main complaint is that Obama never really went to the mats to defend the consensus Democratic opposition to high-end Bush tax cuts and their extension, and the main beef seems to be retroactive as much as prospective.

The tax-deal rebellion reflects gradually building liberal anger towards the Obama administration on topics ranging from the public option in health care to the unwillingness to pursue prosecution of Bush administration figures over civil liberties violations and treatment of terrorism suspects; the expansion of the U.S. troop commitment in Afghanistan; and above all, the President’s continuing protestations of bipartisanship.  Furious injunctions to the president to “fight” for progressive principles, regardless of the legislative consequences, have spread far beyond the blogosphere to a wide array of congressional Democrats.

What’s unclear at the moment is whether the House Democratic action represented just a symbolic measure that won’t get in the way of House approval of the tax deal next week, or a more serious protest that will require some sort of modifications in the package that progressives can claim as a trophy.  The latter contingency, of course, will give conservative Republicans a new excuse to walk away from the package and try to impose their own tax policies in the next Congress with their enhanced numbers.

In any event, the intra-Democratic rhetoric has grown so strong that it’s revived the immediate-post-election chattering classes talk about a primary challenge to Obama in 2012, with journalist Robert Kuttner being the most outspoken about dumping Obama lest he become the “Democrats’ Hoover,” and with anyone who defends the tax deal getting a lot of heat as a sell-out.

The most certain thing about the tax deal is that it has obliterated the attention that was being given to the Bowles-Simpson commission report and a variety of other deficit reduction proposals, even as the two parties appeared poised to approve measures that would create added deficits in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars.   The lack of resistance (so far) by Tea Party Movement figures is as good a sign as any that its alleged total focus on debts and deficits is, like that of the Republican Party it dominates, a mirage that quickly fades once high-end tax cuts are on the table.

In other words, deficit-talk seems most useful in Washington as a way for partisans to excoriate their opponents’ priorities—i.e., the Democratic resistance to “entitlement reform” and the Republican resistance to progressive taxation and restrained defense spending.  Actual concern on the topic, however, is harder to find, even at the end of a year where it’s rarely out of the headlines.

In Praise of Comprehensive Tax Reform

Friday, December 10th, 2010
Elbert Ventura



Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

The current debate over the tax-cut compromise hammered out by President Obama and Republicans in Congress raises the obvious question: If the bill passes (and that’s certainly not a sure bet at this point, as left and right harden their positions), what will happen in 2012?

Today’s New York Times offers an answer:

…Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.

The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020.

If this is indeed the plan that is forming, it’s good news. There has been a steady drumbeat of support in the Washington wonkosphere for comprehensive tax reform. It’s a no-brainer, really: simplifying the tax code by eliminating the thicket of deductions, exceptions, and loopholes that has come to overwhelm our system will allow government to lower rates even as revenues stay the same.

An Obama Administration push for tax reform also gives it a powerful political weapon approaching the 2012 elections. The message would be: “Forget the Bush tax cuts – they’re expiring. In their place is the Obama tax reform plan.” Though claiming reform is “the only way Obama can win in 2012” might be a little hyperbolic, William Galston is right to say that such a pivot “would enable him to move back on offense and to become the transformative leader he clearly wants to be.”

What should comprehensive tax reform look like? The administration and the Hill could do worse than start with the Wyden-Gregg tax reform plan, which would leave the tax code with three brackets (15, 25, and 35 percent), impose a flat corporate tax rate of 24 percent, and triple the standard deduction, while eliminating a whole host of loopholes and deductions. The plan is expected to cut the average taxpayer’s and corporation’s tax burden while keeping revenue steady.

Next year marks the 25th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a landmark achievement. The massive bill simplified the code and lowered rates, and won bipartisan support. (Here is yet another deflation of the Tea Party’s mythical Reagan: Wouldn’t you know it, Reagan worked with the other party and reached compromise.) The sprawling lawn that is the tax code has been left alone since then, and it is now overgrown. An Obama campaign to simplify the tax code is not the only good policy—it’s good politics.

An Ugly But Necessary Deal on Taxes

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The tax cut deal struck last night by President Obama and Congressional Republicans has only one thing going for it: urgent economic necessity. If unemployment weren’t stuck at just under 10 percent – possibly for years, warns Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – there would be no way any self-respecting progressive could support it.

How ugly is this deal? Let us count the ways. First, it forces progressives to swallow the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. President Obama’s undoubtedly painful decision to go back (for now) on his oft-repeated promise to repeal them reflects the post-midterm political realities of divided government.

Second, it’s hugely expensive. It could cost as much as $800 billion over the next two years, even as the federal government staggers under the weight of massive deficits. It’s an inauspicious start, to say the least, to the new era of fiscal discipline Republicans promised in the midterm elections. Let’s face it: they’d rather have tax cuts. In any case, the price tag makes you wonder if America can afford this kind of bipartisan compromise.

For all that, the deal was probably inevitable given the economy’s persistent weakness. To have failed to extend the middle class tax cuts would have withdrawn hundreds of billions of purchasing power from the economy at a time when demand is insufficient to trigger new business investment. To have not extended the cuts for upper-income taxpayers would have made it difficult if not impossible for Obama to get what he wanted from Republicans: namely, an extension of unemployment benefits, a payroll tax holiday workers next year, and a renewal of business tax breaks passed this year.

Waiving the payroll tax is an important creative addition, since by lowering labor costs it gives employers a direct incentive to hire workers. Also on the plus side, the deal keeps rates on capital gains and dividends low, and includes “direct expensing” of business investments.

President Obama clearly views his tax provisions as stimulus by the only political means available to him, given public – not just Republican antipathy – to more government spending. He raised the stakes yesterday, warning that America has arrived at another “Sputnik moment” and could be eclipsed by rivals if we can’t turn the economy around. The President also showed little patience with liberal purists who are loudly bewailing, for the umpteenth time, their “betrayal” by a Democratic President.

“Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do,” he said. “The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

It’s true that a majority of the public consistently has opposed tax breaks for the rich. But it’s also true that Americans, and especially the independents who propelled the Republicans’ midterm gains, have even less appetite for political brinkmanship designed to score partisan points. The U.S. left is always up for a bracing round of class warfare, but voters aren’t likely to reward tactics that could result in slowing down the recovery and raising their taxes at the worst possible moment.

The good news is that the extension is only for two years. That gives time for a reconsideration of the whole ungainly package in 2012, by which time the jobless rate presumably will have fallen back to earth. That allows room for a more constructive debate next year over a sweeping tax overhaul designed to promote growth, long-term fiscal stability, and fairness. It also puts the question of how to restore a progressive tax code smack in the middle of the next presidential elections, where it belongs.

Photo credit: David Reber

Is Bipartisanship Compromise Really Possible on Deficits?

Friday, December 3rd, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The simplest way to summarize the current moment in U.S. politics is to note that both Congress and the presidentially-appointed deficit commission are engaged in highly symbolic posturing in which some observers see an eventual bipartisan convergence and others see the ultimate triumph of partisanship.

The maneuvering over the fate of the Bush tax cuts is a prime example.  After a procedural wrinkle gave House Democrats the sequence of votes they wanted, they succeeded in passing the long-promised extension of tax cuts targeted to the middle class (though those at the top end, of course, will benefit as well).  But prospects for passage of such a bill in the Senate have, of course, fallen prey to that chamber’s 60-vote requirement, and to the Republican conviction that the White House will ultimately agree to an across-the-board extension of tax cuts, either as a temporary measure, or as part of a deal that would extend unemployment benefits and pursue other worthy priorities.  The single-minded GOP focus on the best possible deal for upper-income Americans (or as Republicans like to call them, “job creators”) arguably gives them greater leverage.

Meanwhile, 11 of the 18 members of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission voted for a package of recommendations, three short of the supermajority required to trigger congressional action.  Given the “third rails” in the report, such as major structural changes in Social Security and the closing of very popular tax exclusions, you could say it’s amazing a majority (including significant congressional players like Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn) voted for it, however reluctantly and conditionally.  On the other hand, none of the House Republicans would support it, and rank-and-file Democratic opposition would be fierce given the totemic nature of Social Security.  And if Republicans and Democrats can’t cobble together something they can support with the cover of a blue-ribbon commission and a presidential mandate, what makes anyone think they can get anything done in Congress starting all over again?

The spin wars over the Bowles-Simpson report between now and the end of the lame-duck session may well determine whether the commission will later be perceived as a breakthrough, or just another confirmation that the two parties disagree too much on basics to get anything fundamental done.  It is, after all, a bit difficult to compromise between the points of view that the preeminent economic problem facing the country is (a) insufficient consumer demand, and (b) too heavy a burden on investors, since these perspectives guide public policy in diametrically opposed directions.  But if continued partisan gridlock is inevitable, it is true that both parties would like to avoid blame for it, particularly among the segment of voters who either believe strongly in bipartisan compromise or support incompatible policies.

It is worth remembering that the faction of the Republican Party usually credited with making deficit reduction a priority after years of happy indifference to the subject, the Tea Party movement, is also the faction most resistant to any cooperation whatsoever with the Obama administration and with congressional Democrats.   And the faction of the Democratic Party traditionally most interested in deficit reduction and most open to bipartisanship just got disproportionately damaged in the midterm elections.  So don’t hold your breath waiting for big compromises.