Published: October 31, 2012
A post-Sandy roundup of the latest "fiscal cliff" news. It's getting closer, you know.
Wall Street Journal, "Fiscal Cliff Forces All Sides to Jockey":
Lawmakers, CEOs, business groups and charities are scrambling to shape the debate over tax and spending policy after the November elections, staking out negotiating positions for what could be a fast-paced brawl....
Party leaders are waiting to see who holds more leverage after the elections. If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is elected, GOP lawmakers will seek to postpone the big decisions until after he takes office next year.
The United States runs the risk of a recession far deeper than many investors and policymakers may think if lawmakers fail to avert looming tax hikes and cuts to public spending.
San Jose Mercury News, "Feinstein warns about effects of 'fiscal cliff'":
The senator called for bipartisanship to solve the fiscal crisis.
"What it takes to move this democracy forward is compromise," Feinstein said. "This has been a very rough two years and it must stop, because it has prevented the people's business from being done."
Bloomberg, "Treasury Sees Debt Limit End 2012":
The U.S. Treasury Department reiterated today it expects to reach the federal debt limit“near the end of 2012,” and that it plans to sell $72 billion in notes and bonds in next week’s refunding.
The Treasury said in a statement today that it can use“extraordinary measures” that would “provide sufficient‘headroom’ under the debt limit to allow the government to continue to meet its obligations until early in 2013.” The Treasury also said an auction under its planned floating-rate note program is “estimated to be at least one year away.”
Seattle Times, "As 'fiscal cliff' nears, some advocate making the leap":
WASHINGTON — The notion of a "fiscal cliff" suggests the country is approaching a calamitous drop-off at the end of the year — and it would be tantamount to suicide to jump off.
But a growing contingent of policy wonks and Democrats insists that letting the Dec. 31 deadline come and go — thus triggering automatic tax increases and spending cuts — could produce the best outcome for the country.
The latter plan invites chaos, layoffs, a downgrading of U.S. debt, and even greater reluctance by business to invest in the United States. Why would anyone consider creating a new recession as an acceptable tactic?