Could going over the fiscal cliff be a good thing?

It is long overdue for Americans to decide whether they want big government or not, Karlsson writes, instead of continuing the current policy of small government when it comes to taxation and big government when it comes to spending.

Mary F. Calvert/Reuters/File
The U.S. Capitol building is pictured as lawmakers returned from the Christmas recess in Washington Thursday. Not stopping the fiscal cliff would represent a great leap toward ending the current unsustainable and unsound build up of debt, Karlsson writes.

Veronique de Rugy makes the case for "going over the cliff". As she correctly points, that has its negative side in the form of higher marginal tax rates, something that is bad for growth, but nevertheless, it is long overdue for Americans to decide whether they want big government or not, instead of continuing the current policy of small government when it comes to taxation and big government when it comes to spending. In the long run, the current deficits that the combination of low taxes and high spending means is both unsound, harmful and unsustainable.

So ultimately, they 'll have to choose between either raising taxes (and that means higher taxes not just for the rich, but for the middle class as well) or cutting popular spending programmes or do a combination of these two. What the so-called "fiscal cliff" means is in fact doing that third option of both raising taxes and cutting spending to cut the current deficit of more than $1 trillion a year by half. 

Not stopping it would therefore represent a great leap toward ending the current unsustainable and unsound build up of debt. The fact that the so-called debt ceiling (currently at $16.4 trillion, more than $2 trillion higher than 16 months ago) will be reached on the last day before "the cliff" could be viewed as a sign that the massive deficit reduction it means should be implemented, even though parts of it (the marginal tax rate increases) are bad for growth.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Could going over the fiscal cliff be a good thing?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2012/1228/Could-going-over-the-fiscal-cliff-be-a-good-thing
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe