How far over the 'fiscal cliff' could they go?

WASHINGTON (AP) - The dealmakers who warn that a year-end plunge off the "fiscal cliff" would be disastrous don't seem to be rushing to stop it. Why aren't they panicking?
For one thing, the Dec. 31 deadline is more flexible than it sounds. Like all skilled procrastinators, from kids putting off homework to taxpayers who file late, Washington negotiators know they can finagle more time if they need it.
That doesn't mean delay would be cost-free. Stock markets might tank if 2013 dawns without a deal. But Americans could be temporarily spared many of the other ill effects if Congress and President Barack Obama blow past their deadline.
The Obama administration would have power to delay some of the tax increases and spending cuts that would officially take effect as January begins. Then, if an agreement is reached early in the year, it could be applied retroactively to wipe them out.
Some lawmakers even argue that briefly going over the cliff is the best way to force a compromise. The Obama administration on Wednesday indicated it would take the plunge if necessary to ensure that the wealthy end up paying higher tax rates.
Pushing the deadline too far is a risky strategy, however. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the fiscal cliff policies, if left unchecked, would spark a recession later in 2013 and send the unemployment rate above 9 percent by fall.
How long could negotiators balk and bicker before putting the U.S. economy in jeopardy? The calendar becomes less and less forgiving as the weeks pass.
A procrastinator's guide to pushing the deadline:
December
Democrats led by Obama and Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner say it's critical to reach a deal this month. Yet both sides appear dug in over taxes. And their two plans are far apart on how much to cut spending while the economy is still recovering from the last recession.
So far, Boehner said, "we're nowhere."
If compromise were easy for this bunch, they wouldn't be in this jam. A good chunk of the fiscal cliff - the automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" - is an artificial deadline created by Congress in hopes of forcing itself to come up with a deficit-cutting plan. It arrives at the same time as the expiration of the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts and other temporary tax breaks scheduled to end unless Congress extends them. Together the taxes and cuts would equal close to $700 billion in deficit reduction over 2013.
Congress could vote to override all this and essentially freeze taxes and spending where they are now while the economy heals. But Obama and lawmakers, especially Republicans bent on budget-cutting, see the fiscal cliff as the critical moment to overcome inertia on the nation's long-term debt crisis.
January
If there's no deal in December, the economy won't fall off a cliff on New Year's Day. But it probably will begin a bumpy downhill ride.
The new Congress that convenes Jan. 3 won't look much different from the one that's deadlocked now, divided between a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-dominated Senate. The lawmakers would feel more heat, however.
Higher taxes for nearly everyone and across-the-board spending cuts would already be law.
"People will get more nervous day by day," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Still, he thinks the economy could weather a few more weeks of uncertainty as long as negotiators appeared to be working toward an agreement.
If the Bush-era tax cuts expired, that would raise income taxes for the average middle-class family by $2,200 over the course of 2013, the White House says. That's about $42 per week, probably not enough to curtail spending right away and deal an immediate blow to the economy, economists say.
Plus, taxpayers might never have to ante up. The Treasury Department sets withholding tables that determine how much tax comes out of Americans' paychecks. It could hold off raising the withholding if a deal seems to be in the works, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow of the private Tax Policy Center.
Both Republicans and Democrats say they don't want middle-class taxpayers to pay higher tax rates. They disagree over whether to let tax rates rise on individual income above $200,000, as Obama wants.
Other far-reaching tax changes are more likely to go ahead in January. For example, although Obama proposes extending the temporary Social Security payroll tax reduction, support for that has been weak. So more money might start coming out of workers' pay, whether or not a fiscal cliff deal is reached. That's another $1,000 over the year, or a little more than $19 per week, from a worker making $50,000.
As for the sequester, the White House can direct the Pentagon and federal agencies to husband their resources for a while and hold off on some spending cuts while negotiations continue.
"The more there's an anticipation that there's actually an agreement in the works, the less of an impact any of this should have," said Chad Stone, chief economist for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He argues that it's OK to miss the fiscal cliff deadline if necessary to achieve a well-designed agreement.
February
What might finally get procrastinators moving if nothing else has? Fear of the United States defaulting on its debts for the first time ever.
Unless Congress acts, the government is expected to hit its legal borrowing limit of $16.39 trillion by the end of December. Treasury Department maneuvers should hold off a default for a couple more months, until late February or early March, private economists say.
Congress could raise the debt limit anytime now, if lawmakers agreed, before resolving the fiscal cliff. But it's being discussed as part of the bigger tax-and-spending package. The White House says raising the debt limit must be included in the deal; Boehner says the Republicans want any increase in the government's borrowing to be matched by spending cuts.
Remember the last debt limit showdown? The government came within a whisker of default in August 2011 before a compromise was reached. The financial markets reeled. Standard & Poor's downgraded the nation's credit rating.
Again coming to the edge of default - an economic crisis that scares investors more than the fiscal cliff - would probably send markets plummeting and finally shake up lawmakers, too.
"That's a pretty scary thing to watch," Zandi said. "For a policymaker that's real motivation."
For one thing, the Dec. 31 deadline is more flexible than it sounds. Like all skilled procrastinators, from kids putting off homework to taxpayers who file late, Washington negotiators know they can finagle more time if they need it.
That doesn't mean delay would be cost-free. Stock markets might tank if 2013 dawns without a deal. But Americans could be temporarily spared many of the other ill effects if Congress and President Barack Obama blow past their deadline.
The Obama administration would have power to delay some of the tax increases and spending cuts that would officially take effect as January begins. Then, if an agreement is reached early in the year, it could be applied retroactively to wipe them out.
Some lawmakers even argue that briefly going over the cliff is the best way to force a compromise. The Obama administration on Wednesday indicated it would take the plunge if necessary to ensure that the wealthy end up paying higher tax rates.
Pushing the deadline too far is a risky strategy, however. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the fiscal cliff policies, if left unchecked, would spark a recession later in 2013 and send the unemployment rate above 9 percent by fall.
How long could negotiators balk and bicker before putting the U.S. economy in jeopardy? The calendar becomes less and less forgiving as the weeks pass.
A procrastinator's guide to pushing the deadline:
December
Democrats led by Obama and Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner say it's critical to reach a deal this month. Yet both sides appear dug in over taxes. And their two plans are far apart on how much to cut spending while the economy is still recovering from the last recession.
So far, Boehner said, "we're nowhere."
If compromise were easy for this bunch, they wouldn't be in this jam. A good chunk of the fiscal cliff - the automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" - is an artificial deadline created by Congress in hopes of forcing itself to come up with a deficit-cutting plan. It arrives at the same time as the expiration of the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts and other temporary tax breaks scheduled to end unless Congress extends them. Together the taxes and cuts would equal close to $700 billion in deficit reduction over 2013.
Congress could vote to override all this and essentially freeze taxes and spending where they are now while the economy heals. But Obama and lawmakers, especially Republicans bent on budget-cutting, see the fiscal cliff as the critical moment to overcome inertia on the nation's long-term debt crisis.
January
If there's no deal in December, the economy won't fall off a cliff on New Year's Day. But it probably will begin a bumpy downhill ride.
The new Congress that convenes Jan. 3 won't look much different from the one that's deadlocked now, divided between a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-dominated Senate. The lawmakers would feel more heat, however.
Higher taxes for nearly everyone and across-the-board spending cuts would already be law.
"People will get more nervous day by day," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Still, he thinks the economy could weather a few more weeks of uncertainty as long as negotiators appeared to be working toward an agreement.
If the Bush-era tax cuts expired, that would raise income taxes for the average middle-class family by $2,200 over the course of 2013, the White House says. That's about $42 per week, probably not enough to curtail spending right away and deal an immediate blow to the economy, economists say.
Plus, taxpayers might never have to ante up. The Treasury Department sets withholding tables that determine how much tax comes out of Americans' paychecks. It could hold off raising the withholding if a deal seems to be in the works, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow of the private Tax Policy Center.
Both Republicans and Democrats say they don't want middle-class taxpayers to pay higher tax rates. They disagree over whether to let tax rates rise on individual income above $200,000, as Obama wants.
Other far-reaching tax changes are more likely to go ahead in January. For example, although Obama proposes extending the temporary Social Security payroll tax reduction, support for that has been weak. So more money might start coming out of workers' pay, whether or not a fiscal cliff deal is reached. That's another $1,000 over the year, or a little more than $19 per week, from a worker making $50,000.
As for the sequester, the White House can direct the Pentagon and federal agencies to husband their resources for a while and hold off on some spending cuts while negotiations continue.
"The more there's an anticipation that there's actually an agreement in the works, the less of an impact any of this should have," said Chad Stone, chief economist for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He argues that it's OK to miss the fiscal cliff deadline if necessary to achieve a well-designed agreement.
February
What might finally get procrastinators moving if nothing else has? Fear of the United States defaulting on its debts for the first time ever.
Unless Congress acts, the government is expected to hit its legal borrowing limit of $16.39 trillion by the end of December. Treasury Department maneuvers should hold off a default for a couple more months, until late February or early March, private economists say.
Congress could raise the debt limit anytime now, if lawmakers agreed, before resolving the fiscal cliff. But it's being discussed as part of the bigger tax-and-spending package. The White House says raising the debt limit must be included in the deal; Boehner says the Republicans want any increase in the government's borrowing to be matched by spending cuts.
Remember the last debt limit showdown? The government came within a whisker of default in August 2011 before a compromise was reached. The financial markets reeled. Standard & Poor's downgraded the nation's credit rating.
Again coming to the edge of default - an economic crisis that scares investors more than the fiscal cliff - would probably send markets plummeting and finally shake up lawmakers, too.
"That's a pretty scary thing to watch," Zandi said. "For a policymaker that's real motivation."
IMHO its quite possible Bronco Bamma is asking for the moon up front so when it gets close to crunch time and they start doing some real negociations B HO can then brag about how far he has compromised from where he started.
Â
But quite frankly, there will never be any meaningful reduction in spending as long as B HO is at the helm.
Debt INCREASE Owned by Each President:
Â
Pre Nixon combined 2.17
Nixon.072
Ford .097
Carter 1.64
Reagan 9.54%
Bush 8.33%
Clinton 9.73%
Bush 20.01%
Obama 46.38%
Obama Projection with his proposed budget⦠Just for the next 4 years... excluding past 4years = 71.97% ADDITIONAL INCREASE
That is all on a credit card with our nationâs natural resources and âgood faithâ at risk.
Â
NO President has run an entire term without a budget!
NO President has held the nation hostage using their 4 year failure to provide a budget their own party could agree with let alone both sides.
And no president in history as demanded, especially as part of a phantom budget a forever, blank check on increases!
Â
It is no wonder even Democrats are aghast!
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/der-streettalk-debt-accumulation-by-president.jpg
For one thing . . . Â Washington negotiators know they can finagle more time if they need it.
Â
These are âextraordinary measuresâ including âtemporarily removing investments from government employee pension funds to clear room for other borrowing.â  http://www.katu.com/news/national/176602101.html
Â
They would then re-pay the $.  What if the âinvestmentâ changed during that time?   Would we get the profit or the bailout depending on the direction of change?Â
Â
Yeah right. I think itâs a charge to us either way.
Â
The Washington negotiators have no skin in the game.
Stay the debt ceiling, close the loopholes, and cut expenses.
Â
Simple math, right?Â
When one approaches a cliff make sure that the car is in the highest gear and the pedal is to the floor.Â
"When in doubt gas it".
BHO's proposal can NOT pass. There is no way in hell that he should be allowed to raise the debt ceiling on his flimsy whim. It's bad enough all the other crap he has shoved down our throats.  I'm ready to ride the cliff - and no, I am not high income - far from it actually - marginal tax rate is 15%. But, being self employed, my effective tax rate, due to SE tax, runs about 32%. Doesn't leave much room for fun.Â
'The dealmakers who warn that a year-end plunge off the "fiscal cliff" would be disastrous don't seem to be rushing to stop it. Why aren't they panicking?'
Â
What is 'partisan ideologies and legislative gridlock' for $200, Alex!
Â
More accurately,
Â
A) Because none of them will be adversely affected by it. More specifically, their respective incomes allow for the loss of the additional money without serious hardship to their livelihoods.Â
Â
B) Because both parties leadership is entrenched in 'my way or the highway' mentalities;
Â
   1) President Obama and the DNC leadership is under some illusion that their victory was 'decisive' or a 'mandate' by the voters.
Â
   2) Rep Boehner and his GOP counterparts are still clinging to the Norquist-esque ideologies that 'their base' not having their taxes increased is of more relative importance than the livelihood of the other 98% of Americans.
Â
The acronym SNAFU comes to mind. Â
They need to jump off.
Obama has worked 4 years to get to this grand opportunity, (stalling on all efforts to bring a budget to the nation) even though we have been over the "cliff" for years, the term has new meaning and a position for blame with this final deadline.
Â
There are no negotiations. It is a perfect segway into getting what the Predsident really wants, and that is his way to socialism or the highway. An ideal way to increase taxes for everyone working,  (donât forget Obamacare already has increased taxes by a huge margin) then blame complaints on the House GOP who are suffering stigma in an effort to do what the voters asked of them, and that is to stop the bleeding, and of borrowing more money to give away in failed stimulus assignments. Â
Â
Adding a âstimulusâ by taxing everyone, to give to unemployed treated as taxable income to the recipients, while printing more food stamps, will encourage even more dependency upon government aid rather than capital earnings with working incomes as a result,  will be much easier without a budget before the end of the year.
Â
Point in case for full control, is the latest vote on UN sanctions. Voted unanimously by the entire Senate, Â Obama says he will veto it because he doesn't agree.
That is part of the point isn't it.  Pass the money around and tax it with each set of hands that touch it. Â
If we help people that need help, it simply cost less to help them directly - or even indirectly - meaning government - without taxing the helped hand too.
Correction: IÂ meant to say IRAN Sanctions.Â
Personally, I don't think I could foresee the Republicans allowing budget to go over the cliff, I'd be willing to bet that they'll allow the tax increase on the top 1-2% of Americans.
 @pdxd The sticking point is the unlimited debt ceiling the pres wants. The repubs may not want to cave on that.
 @pdxd Based on this and other comments, you appear to be cheering on the left to remain uncompromising. You seem eager to play chicken with the financial health of American families. I submit that those who do not wish to see both sides come to a reasonable compromise are a part of the problem.
 @mikew I do support removing some of the Bush-era tax cuts. Absolutely, I don't deny that. I also believe, and have posted in the past, that I also agree with removing the mortgage interest deduction on 2nd homes, or on mortgages above $400,000. I've also said that we need to do more to prevent Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid fraud to reduce the amount spent on those programs without reducing the services to those who are eligible for those programs.Â
Â
Close, but not quite to the cigar yet.
@pdxd @mikew  """"I do support removing some of the Bush-era tax cuts."""""
Â
Why just "some" of the Bush rate reductions why not all???? I mean really, its just going back to the Clinton era tax rates and most dems love to brag about tha time in history Why not let all of the Bush tax rates sunset??
Â
Imagine the power, imagine the influence we could have on how our government spends our money if we, and I mean ALL of us, everyone that agrees with my viewpoint and everyone with the opposite views would just for once, get together and NOT PAY OUR TAXES. We would have their undivided attention, we could have a balanced budget.
 @last boyscout I sincerely believe that we need a Federal law that says two things;
Â
1) Balanced budgets are required every fiscal cycle. No exceptions without 2/3 majority in both houses, and any un-funded components MUST come with tangible means for repayment.
Â
2) Failure of Legislature to pass a COMPLETE budget, and signed into law by the expiration of preceding budget cycle causes ALL Federal elected officals to cease receiving wages, retirement, medical and all other benefits. The loss of these monies and net benefits is NOT reimbursable, and will not be repaid after a budget is passed.Â
@MarkKpic @last boyscout Excellent!
@MarkKpic  BRAVO
OUR GOVERNMENT IS PLAYING US AGAINST EACH OTHER and FAILING to serve us in the meantime. Too bad the citizens can't freeze all of their pay checks until this is resolved.
Seems like all those Obama supporters wouldn't mind paying a little extra taxes. Don't they want to pay their fair share?
 @2012 Hope and Change Most of the Obama supporters don't pay much tax.
 @oodathunked And your source is?
 @2012 Hope and Change I'm willing to pay a bit more, but at the same time, tax loopholes utilized by the wealthy need to be fixed, and they need to be put back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration....which was when our economy flourished.
"when our economy flourished".
Â
It only 'flourrished' because we were in the front end of a backend loaded trade deal.  *As in Trade agreements.*Â
We were floating products this way as the beginning of the acceleration of jobs were floating that way.
@pdxd @2012 Hope and Change """"""and they need to be put back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration....which was when our economy flourished""""""
Â
So if our economy flourished with EVERYONE paying clintons higher rates, why not end ALL of the bush cuts and not just a select few...... I mean our economy did flourish with EVERYONE at the higher tax rates.
 @pdxd Of course, during that same Clinton administration, the federal government was spending 4% LESS of our GDP. I don't hear the left eager to slash that much spending.
Both sides need to compromise and neither side is doing it.
 @pdxd  @2012 Hope and Change OK, but if we go back to the Clinton tax rates, then we also go back to the exact same budget. Not a penny more. Hey listen!, hear that?, that is the sound of people squealing for "their" money.
Fiscal Cliff will never happen, our President told us so.
 @oodathunked No kidding. He never breaks his promises.