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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496