Off the fiscal cliff and into the abyss
Efforts to avert the fiscal cliff offer great drama, but won't solve Washington's budget woes and could precipitate another recession or worse.
The Budget Act of 2011 requires the president and Congress to agree on a nine-year $1.2 trillion deficit reduction program, or annual defense and nonentitlement outlays will be automatically cut $107 billion on Jan. 1. Also, the Bush tax cuts, payroll tax reductions and other assorted programs expire.
Altogether, $136 billion in annual spending reductions and $532 billion in additional taxes could trigger cataclysmic consequences for the economy. Unemployment would rocket past 15 percent, state government finances would collapse, homeowners would default on mortgages, and hundreds of banks would fail.
To avoid calamity, President Obama and House Republicans will likely agree to raise taxes on high-income Americans by $100 billion to $150 billion and curb spending an equal amount. However, those efforts will prove too little, and the economy may still skid into recession - driving down tax revenues and pushing up the budget gap again.
The annual deficit exceeds $1 trillion. Spending is up $1 trillion - outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements have increased by an amount equal to the entire 2013 defense budget.
By 2020, runaway entitlement spending will require shutting down the military or crippling many domestic spending programs to head off ballooning deficits.
With Americans living longer, the reasonable solution is to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70, and pattern U.S. health care after other national systems that better contain costs.
Democrats, hamstrung by unions, are loath to require Americans to work longer, and are too beholden to tort lawyers and the medical establishment for campaign support - hence, ObamaCare just throws more money into a broken system.
Republicans refuse to admit more competition won't adequately slow rocketing costs.
Without raising the retirement age, effective price controls in health care and tort reform, federal spending and the national debt will jet into the stratosphere. Mounting interest payments, investor reluctance to buy U.S. Treasurys and consequent draconian cuts in spending will thrust the United States into the crisis now gripping Greece and Spain.
More immediately, tax increases and spending cuts threaten a second recession, because Obama and Congress failed to address dysfunctions that created the bubble and bust of the 2000s and make the economy perilously dependent on deficit spending.
A huge trade deficit with China and on oil continues, but the federal government is doing extra borrowing and spending to sustain domestic demand and modest growth. Obama and House Republicans indicate no interest in confronting China to force a more equitable trading relationship.
Slashing oil imports enough requires the president to permit more drilling in the gulf, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in Alaska, and for Republicans to embrace alternative energy sources and aggressive conservation measures. Neither seems likely.
Absent changes in trade and energy policies to boost domestic demand and growth, budget deficit reduction is not possible without another long, hard recession. And absent genuine deficit reduction, the nation is headed for economic chaos by the end of the decade.
Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pa. Treasurer McCord resigns without explanation, to leave Feb. 12
- Wintry mix of rain, freezing rain and snow bearing down on Pittsburgh area
- Starkey: What are Penguins, Pirates up to?
- Pitt’s 2015 schedule includes 5 road games in 1st 7 games
- Beaver County man arrested in 24-year-old Clinton County cold case
- BNY Mellon is putting iconic Citizens Bank Tower up for sale
- Beer spills onto Route 22 when delivery truck collides with coal truck
- Capitals dominate overmatched Penguins in win at Verizon Center
- 3 in Westmoreland charged in prescription narcotics operation
- Police stop car in Beltzhoover, find body in back seat
- UPMC, Highmark disagree over payment of medical claims for children