The "Fiscal Cliff" would drag America into certain recession

Congress must overcome its partisan rifts.

Irrespective of next week’s election, the fiscal challenges facing the next US government are vast. As the country races towards January’s “fiscal cliff”, the drumbeat warnings of recession have reached fever pitch, with partisan wrangling threatening to derail the sluggish US recovery.

Coming into effect at the dawn of 2013, the “fiscal cliff” represents the confluence of two events: a raft of spending cuts agreed as part of last year’s deal to raise the national debt ceiling and the expiration of Obama-backed extensions of tax breaks introduced in the Bush years.

The fiscal belt-tightening is expected to slash the deficit by almost $500bn – its steepest reduction since 1968. At 5.1 per cent, the rate is comparable to those experienced by Greece, Spain and Italy during their recent austerity drives.

Going over the cliff would almost surely plunge the US into recession, given the fragility of the economy. In May, the Congressional Budget Office warned of a 1.3 per cent contraction if action was not taken.  However, as the cliff looms, gloomier forecasts have predicted annual GDP contractions ranging from 3.6 per cent to 4 per cent.

According to a report issued by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAT), the fiscal shock would result in dramatic job losses of over 5 million by 2014, catapulting the rate of unemployment from the current rate of 7.8 per cent to 11 per cent by 2015.

Naturally, mass job losses and higher federal taxes would have severe effects on consumption. The report predicts that average disposable income is likely to fall annually by 8-10%, hitting the poorest hardest due to cuts in child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

Overall, mass unemployment, plummeting consumption and plaguing uncertainty is likely to weigh heavily on the US economy, stultifying its anaemic recovery unless drastic action is taken.

More pressingly, if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling before the US hits its $16.4tn statutory debt limit – expected sometime between the election and the end of 2012 – the US would face default – a truly grim prospect. 

The NAT has reported that the approaching “fiscal cliff” has already shaved up to 0.6 per cent from US GDP this year alone, with the tense climate deterring businesses from investing and hiring.

As insecurity gathers momentum, an anti-debt lobby group “Campaign to Fix the Debt” has garnered the support of more than 80 CEOs – including figureheads from General Electric, Microsoft, UPS and JP Morgan – to pressure Congress into overcoming partisan deadlock to hammer out a solution.

But the prospect of this has so far looked bleak; both sides seek different solutions and both sides brook no argument over their staunch positions. One particular impasse stems from the Democrats’ drive to introduce tax cut extensions to all but the highest-earners, much to the chagrin of the Republican contingent. Likewise, Republicans want cuts to health and welfare, whilst Democrats are adverse to cuts in entitlement spending.

Just last summer, such “political brinkmanship” was cited by Standard and Poor’s in their downgrade of the US economy from AAA to AA+, as political wrangling overshadowed debate over the federal debt ceiling.

“We could have a recession in my view that is significantly greater than [anyone] is forecasting today, because it’s an indictment of our ability to govern”, said Dave Cote, leading member of Campaign to Fix the Debt.

Even the current political stalemate is conquered, extended tax cuts and deferred sequestration would hold their own economic perils. This path would only curtail the deficit by $90bn, contrary to the $500bn reduction if America does indeed “go over” the cliff.

Therein lies the trade-off: foster the recovery or confront the debt head-on. Most likely, following pleas from prominent economists such Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernake, Congress will pursue a medium-term plan that privileges the recovery whilst tackling the debt, but time will only tell.

Overall though, inaction is most certainly not an option. The sudden jolt of the “fiscal cliff” could shock the economy into freefall, dragging the global economy down with it.

As the US stares into the abyss, Congress must – and most probably will – overcome its partisan fissures for the sake of America’s economic future.

Thus is the exigency of the times.

Clouds gather over Capitol Hill. Photo: Getty

Alex Ward is a London-based freelance journalist who has previously worked for the Times & the Press Association. Twitter: @alexward3000

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.