• Syndicate content
  • Comment

US still faces political fights on spending, debt

Posted: January 2, 2013 - 10:13am

WASHINGTON (AP) — A last-minute deal will keep the U.S. from driving off the so-called "fiscal cliff," but higher taxes and continued political fighting in Washington threaten to shake the fragile economy well into 2013.

A bill passed by Congress late Tuesday averts widespread tax increases and delays deep spending cuts that had threatened to return the country to recession. World stocks went up in response.

Many economists were disappointed that Congress and the White House couldn't reach agreement on a broader deal to significantly reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. That could have boosted business and consumer confidence and accelerated growth.

"Nothing really has been fixed," said Joseph LaVorgna, an economist at Deutsche Bank. "There are much bigger philosophical issues that we aren't even addressing yet."

Lawmakers postponed tough decisions on government spending, giving themselves a reprieve from cuts that were scheduled to start taking effect automatically Jan. 1. That just sets the stage for more hard bargaining later. Spending cuts could hurt growth even more.

Another standoff is likely to arrive as early as February, when Congress will need to raise the $16.4 trillion federal borrowing limit so the government can keep paying its bills. House Republicans, who objected strongly to the latest fiscal deal Tuesday before the chamber finally voted to approve it, probably won't agree to raise the debt limit without offsetting spending cuts that Democrats are sure to resist.

President Barack Obama warned Republicans late Tuesday that "if Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic, far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff."

Meanwhile, the economy doesn't have much growth to give. Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo, predicts it will expand just 1.5 percent in 2013, down from a weak 2.2 percent in 2012. Unemployment stands at 7.7 percent.

Ben Schwartz, chief market strategist for Lightspeed Financial, said unemployment was still likely to edge up and retail sales growth was likely to be weaker than last year.

"Regardless of a deal getting done, people on Wall Street are not going to run around giving high fives" in celebration, Schwartz said. "The federal government is obviously dysfunctional, to say the least."

The months-long political standoff over fiscal policy has already taken its toll, adding uncertainty that has discouraged consumers from spending and businesses from hiring and investing.

The fiscal cliff, with its Jan. 1 deadline to reach a deal over taxes and spending, was created to force Democrats and Republicans to compromise, and it barely succeeded. Without a deal, more than $500 billion in tax increases would hit the economy in 2013 alone, along with $109 billion in cuts from the military and domestic spending programs.

Negotiations to avert catastrophe have highlighted once again how far apart the two parties are on taxes (Republicans don't want to raise them) and spending (Democrats are reluctant to cut government programs).

"What induces the two sides to stop fighting and start compromising?" asked Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Political gridlock has been rattling financial markets and shaking consumer and business confidence the past two years.

After a fight over raising the debt limit last year, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's yanked the U.S. government's blue-chip AAA bond rating because it feared that America's dysfunctional political system couldn't deliver a credible plan to reduce the federal government's debt. S&P warned that "the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge."

The Dow Jones industrials dropped 635 points in panicked selling the first day of trading after the S&P announcement.

Outside Washington, the economy has been getting some good news. Europe's financial crisis appears to have eased. And the U.S. real estate market finally appears to be recovering from the housing bust.

But partisan divide has left businesses and consumers wondering what's going to happen to their taxes and to federal contracts.

Companies have plenty of cash. But they reduced spending on industrial equipment, computers and software from July to September, the first quarterly drop since mid-2009 when the economy was still in recession. And hiring has been stuck at a modest level of about 150,000 new jobs per month this year.

Consumer confidence fell in December for the second straight month, according to a survey by the Conference Board, which blamed the drop on worries about the fiscal cliff. The uncertainty is also believed to have hurt holiday shopping, which grew at the slowest pace this year since 2008.

 

  • Comment

Comments (6)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Reaganesque
4125
Points
Reaganesque 01/02/13 - 01:02 pm
0
4

Well.............

Schwartz said. "The federal government is obviously dysfunctional, to say the least."

Really?

"Companies have plenty of cash. But they reduced spending on industrial equipment, computers and software from July to September, the first quarterly drop since mid-2009 when the economy was still in recession. And hiring has been stuck at a modest level of about 150,000 new jobs per month this year."

Really? They don't share BO's philosophy of "spend, spend and spend"?

"Meanwhile, the economy doesn't have much growth to give. Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo, predicts it will expand just 1.5 percent in 2013, down from a weak 2.2 percent in 2012. Unemployment stands at 7.7 percent."

Really? I wonder why....

lachowsj
2116
Points
lachowsj 01/02/13 - 02:29 pm
3
0

Really?

Businesses were reacting to uncertainty generated by the fight over the fiscal cliff. Even with this partial solution the economy and markets will have a mild uptick.

If you don't like the job BO is doing with the economy, compare the outlook for the US to that of the UK where Conservatives are in power and government spending has been greatly reduced. The UK's Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting growth of 1.2% in the coming year, though many economists think that is overly optimistic. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/01/uk-economy-groundhog-year...) In the US, growth is predicted to be 2% or more with the second half being better than the first half. (http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/economic_outlook/)

Reaganesque
4125
Points
Reaganesque 01/02/13 - 05:13 pm
0
3

Well.............

Nothing was solved except to give our ruler his tax increases.

I don't like what BO is doing in any regard. It's not like he knows what he's doing and has a plan.

1.5% or 2.2% is near stagnant. No celebration by business over that.

crypted quill
9964
Points
crypted quill 01/02/13 - 05:25 pm
2
0

Hook, line and sinker you

Hook, line and sinker you happily swallowed the Reagan (GOP Jesus) myth.

Good boy 'esque.

MessiahAndrw
1078
Points
MessiahAndrw 01/08/13 - 02:51 pm
4
0

What confuses me is why the

What confuses me is why the anti-spending Republicans are pro-military funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_rev...

#1 "Discretionary spending" - Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations - $666.2b
#2 "Discretionary spending" - $80.6b

Here are the top 5 military spenders in the world:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757...

With the cold war over for 2 decades now, no real 'enemies' or major wars, it seems somewhat ridiculousness to keep spending so much on it. Why aren't more debt debates talking about cutting military spending? It's the perfect example of something you're spending too much money on.

Once you build a big hammer, eventually somebody starts looking like a nail.

ARVoiceofLogic
4505
Points
ARVoiceofLogic 01/08/13 - 03:51 pm
2
0

That

and the fact the debt ceiling has been raised routinely for decades. These are bills that congress (ie: including replicans) agreed to incur.

Now they don't want to pay? I thought Tea B'ers hated free loaders?

MessiahAndrw
1078
Points
MessiahAndrw 01/08/13 - 04:11 pm
1
2

I, too, dislike people that

I, too, dislike people that freeload off of the government. Universal healthcare and education are things I actually support, but the government should not be systematically handing out income or free housing to the poor.

crypted quill
9964
Points
crypted quill 01/10/13 - 08:05 am
2
0

'A Relentless Theme Since The Reagan Revolution

...the perpetual “crisis” facing Social Security.'

http://newsvandal.com/2013/01/saving-social-security-is-easier-than-you-...

"We need a national campaign to re-name “Social Security.”

It is time to re-brand it as “The Freedom Fund.”

"After World War II, the “Department of War” was re-named the “Department of Defense.” That little semantic tweak gave the Military-Industrial Complex a lot of job security. Why? Because Congress votes yearly to fund the “defense” budget, not the “war” budget. Imagine if each year we talked about the growth of war spending instead of an increase in defense spending? Cutting “war spending” sounds a whole lot better than cutting “defense spending,” doesn’t it?

War sounds bad, but defense sounds good.

Not surprisingly, Congress likes to keep actual “war spending” out of the Defense Budget, and they’ve shrewdly funded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a series of separate bills called “continuing resolutions.”

Coincidentally, the Congressional Research Service reported in March of 2011 that Operation Iraqi Freedom (notice the use of “Freedom”) cost a total of $806 billion—which would’ve been enough to cover the $801 billion shortfall in The Freedom Fund (a.k.a. Social Security). If we can easily spend $806 billion securing the “Freedom” of Iraqis, doesn’t it stand to reason that a reelection-obsessed Congress wouldn’t find some way to support The Freedom Fund for their fellow Americans? Particularly in an election year?"

Back to Top