CBO: Going over the fiscal cliff is bad, but so is ignoring the national debt

The Congressional Budget Office warns in a report Thursday that allowing tax hikes and spending cuts to occur – going over the fiscal cliff – could cause a recession.

America’s budgetary scorekeepers have published a postelection “FYI” for the president and Congress, with this blunt message: That “fiscal cliff” thing is dangerous, but so is the opposite policy of ignoring the national debt.

“Fiscal cliff” is the nickname for a collection of tax increases and federal spending cuts that are scheduled to take effect at the start of next year.

Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in a report Thursday that allowing those tax hikes and spending cuts to occur “will probably cause the economy to fall back into a recession next year.”

But, the CBO report added in the next breath, letting the policy changes take effect would actually “make the economy stronger later in the decade and beyond.” The reason: The tax hikes and spending cuts would reduce federal deficits, thus avoiding a dangerous surge in federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).

What this implies is that there’s a very tricky job ahead for a Democratic president, a Republican-led House, and a Democratic-majority Senate.

The ideal way forward, suggested in the CBO report and in other independent reviews, would be to change the cliff into a gradual slope – one that avoids recession in the near-term but still leads down a path of deficit reduction. It’s not just a matter of saying, “Let’s postpone those tax and spending changes.”

Elected officials in both parties have endorsed the general idea of long-term fiscal reform. But the choices are difficult. The new report, titled “Choices for Deficit Reduction,” makes a big deal of that.

It talks about various options for reducing entitlement benefits, cutting other federal spending, or raising new tax revenue. A mix of those approaches may very well be needed, the CBO implies, because of the magnitude of the mismatch between expected revenues and spending.

The report is both a nudge to action and a partial tool kit for lawmakers as they bargain in the coming days and weeks.

Some overview points from the report and other recent CBO analysis:

• The option of doing nothing isn’t pretty. If policymakers push the economy straight over the cliff on Jan. 1, a recession would probably result, yielding a decline of 0.5 percent in GDP for the calendar year. The unemployment rate would shoot up to 9.1 percent, the CBO predicts.

• The option of fully removing the cliff would result in an economy that grows, but not at a roaring pace. A separate analysis released Thursday by the CBO estimated that keeping Bush-era tax rates in place, nixing the cuts in defense and other spending, and making other changes (including extending payroll-tax relief for workers) would push GDP up to a growth rate of about 2.4 percent.

• But fully removing the cliff adds a lot to the federal deficit. Spending would exceed revenue by an extra $503 billion in 2013. That’s equal to more than 3 percent of a year’s GDP.

• Doing nothing to stem the red ink would have long-term consequences. The CBO outlines negative effects including an impaired ability to respond to unexpected challenges, as well as “an increase in the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would thus lose the ability to borrow at affordable interest rates.”

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.