'Fiscal cliff' 101: 5 basic questions answered

President Obama and congressional leaders are working to stop the US from going over the “fiscal cliff,” a combination of higher taxes and lower spending set to take effect Jan. 1. Here are five steps to understanding what's going on.

4. Wow, that sounds awful. Why not just cancel these policies?

Jason Reed/REUTERS
President Obama walks from the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington after speaking about cutting the US deficit on Sept. 19, 2011.

America has to weigh short- to intermediate-term economic gain against long-term economic solvency.

With debt held by the public north of 75 percent of GDP, the US can’t afford to run $1 trillion dollar deficits (the size of the deficit in 2012) indefinitely. Academic research suggests that debt payments and fear about future tax increases can crowd out economic growth when debt nears 100 percent of GDP.

Simply kicking the can down the road for another year could push the two credit-rating agencies that currently hold US debt in the highest regard to lower their rating, potentially driving up borrowing costs. And borrowing costs could rise even without a downgrade if investors think that America lacks the discipline to get its fiscal house in order. Higher interest costs mean the price of America’s debt to taxpayers could spike, causing even deeper cuts elsewhere.

But every step you take toward lowering the nation’s debt in the long term is a hit against employment and a shaky economic recovery today.

For example, ending long-term unemployment benefits would help the deficit but would cost around 800,000 jobs, the CBO estimates. Extending tax breaks for all household income up to but not above $250,000, as Democrats demand, would cost 200,000 jobs compared with a full extension of all tax cuts, according to the same estimates. And slashing nondefense government spending in line with the sequester, as Republicans desire, would cut 400,000 jobs.

4 of 5

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.

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