1 Jan 2013
U.S. Budget Compromise Deal Reached
By JANET HOOK, CAROL E. LEE and COREY BOLES
President Barack Obama and Senate leaders reached a New Year’s Eve budget agreement that would boost income-tax rates rise for the first time in nearly 20 years, maintain unemployment benefits for millions of people and blunt the impact of spending cuts that were looming as part of the fiscal cliff.
The long-sought compromise—which would raise taxes on joint filer’s incomes above $450,000 and delay for two months part of the $110 billion in spending cuts that otherwise would have taken place in early January—was expected to be approved by the Senate in the early morning hours of Tuesday. The House was expected to consider it later in the day.
The delay in approval meant that the U.S. technically went over the fiscal cliff at midnight. But with U.S. markets closed Tuesday, the impact of missing the deadline could be minimal. What damage the wrangling has caused—to the 2013 tax-filing season and consumer confidence—is already assured.
Passage isn’t a sure thing in the House, where conservative Republicans are dismayed that the compromise raises taxes and doesn’t include more cuts in federal spending. Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said the House could amend it and send it back to the Senate, but supporters of the compromise hope that a big bipartisan vote of approval in the Senate would help in propel it through the House and onto Mr. Obama’s desk for his signature by Thursday.
The compromise was prepared for the Senate floor after Vice President Joe Biden, who brokered the deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) traveled to the Capitol for a late-night meeting with Senate Democrats, including many who harbored reservations about the deal.
Major elements of the compromise would:
Permanently raising tax rates on income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for jointly filing couples.
Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends for those households, from the current 15% to Clinton-era levels of roughly 20%.
Limit the value of personal exemptions as well as the value of itemized deductions, two restrictions that would kick in at $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples. Those limits disappeared in 2010.
Make Your Own Deficit-Reduction Plan
Try your hand at balancing the budget and share the results.
Looking Over the Fiscal Cliff
The federal government faces a rolling series of deadlines over the next few months in its continuing budget battle. Take a look ahead.
Falling Over the Fiscal Cliff
See some scenarios for how different groups of people may be affected by the tax changes that will take place if the fiscal cliff isn’t resolved by the Jan. 1., 2013, deadline.
More photos and interactive graphics
Setting the estate tax rate at 40% on estates over $5 million, up from the 35% that applies now to those over $5.12 million. That isn’t as high as the 45% rate Mr. Obama sought with a $3.5 million exemption.
The deal doesn’t do much to control the U.S.’s long-term budget woes, which are driven largely by entitlement spending, especially on health care, which were left untouched in this agreement. And depending on the budget math and the ultimate fate of the spending cuts, it may not do much for the short-run deficit either.
By waiting until the last minute, and reaching a deal on a much smaller scale than either side once envisioned, Washington also deferred many of its thorniest questions for perhaps as little as a few weeks. In late February of early March, the Treasury Department will run out of extraordinary measures to deal with the government’s borrowing limit—which it reached on Monday—and Congress would need to approve an increase.
The delay in the spending cuts will run out about the same time. In effect, Congress has delayed the fiscal cliff by erecting a new and potentially more dangerous one.
Mr. Biden, asked about the outlook for the compromise, said that his long experience on the Hill taught him two things. “You shouldn’t predict how the Senate is going to vote before they vote—you won’t make a lot of money,” he told reporters. “And you surely shouldn’t predict how the House is going to vote. But I feel very, very good.”
Asked what pitch he made to liberals who were skeptical of the deal, Mr. Biden said he told them, “This is Joe Biden and I’m your buddy.”
The changes in tax rates that were agreed to between Messrs. Biden and McConnell would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenue over 10 years. While that would represent the largest tax increase in decades, it would be less than 20% of the revenue that would have come in if policy makers allowed all the current tax breaks to expire on New Year’s Eve.
The Biden-McConnell deal is a classic compromise that included something for everyone to love—and hate. The key question is whether the positive components and the pressure of the Jan. 1 deadline are enough to neutralize the parts that raise objections. If not, attacks from the left and right could combine to topple the deal.
For Republicans, the bill includes the bitter medicine of the first income-tax rate increase since 1993, a violation of the anti-tax orthodoxy that has defined their party. On the other hand, it would codify the Bush-era lower income-tax rates for most Americans as permanent law, ending the recurring battles over how long they will endure.
For Democrats, the bill’s tax increase makes good on their party’s marquee promise in the 2012 election to raise taxes on upper-income Americans and not the middle class. But many Democrats, especially liberals, were infuriated that the bill set the income threshold as high as $450,000.
Heading into a meeting with Mr. Biden and Senate Democrats, Sen. Clare McCaskill of Missouri said, “Nobody’s happy—that means its probably a compromise.” Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa gave a thumbs down. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said she expects to support it. “I’m believing we’ll get a big vote, which will help us in the House,” she said.
“There are many, many reasons people don’t like the proposal but there is very close to unanimity that its better than going over the cliff,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said after the meeting. “There are disagreements on this provision, that provision and other provisions are large and wide but the number of people who believe we should go over the cliff rather than vote for this is very small.”
One sticking point in the talks had been automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, which are set to take effect in coming days.
Republicans had insisted the cuts of $24 billion be offset with savings in other areas. The White House wants some of the offset to be in the form of tax increases, not just other spending cuts.
The deal pays for delaying the sequester with a mix of new taxes and spending cuts, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A congressional official said that $12 billion of that would come from a shift in the rules affecting workplace-based 401(k) plans. The change would allow plan holders to roll their 401(k) assets into a Roth IRA plan, which would require them to pay taxes up front on any gains in their plan. The benefit for investors would be that disbursements from Roth plans in retirement are tax free.
In effect, the move provides more upfront revenues to the Treasury, but potentially robs it of money over the long term as taxes paid when individuals make withdrawals from their 401(k) plans would likely be far greater.
Other elements of the deal could be costly. It calls for a permanent fix to the alternative minimum tax, a one-year extension of unemployment insurance benefits, and a five-year extension of other tax breaks. Among them are tax credits for families of modest means, including one for college tuition, and an expanded earned income tax credit, which provides cash to working poor families who don’t earn enough to pay income taxes. It also would block a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year.
The deal taking shape also would include tax breaks adopted by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year, aides with knowledge of the talks said. Among them was a one-year extension of the tax credit, with slight modifications that would allow wind-farm developers to claim the credit for projects that begin construction by Jan. 1, 2014.
Some Democrats and liberal activists said they believe the White House gave up too much, weakening Democrats’ position heading into next round of budget talks with Republicans. “It’s not a good deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2% [of taxpayers] and sets the stage for more hostage taking,” Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a twitter message.
Opposition to the deal also came quickly from conservatives. Heritage Action, a conservative political group, urged senators to vote against the bill and said it would be a “key vote” in its ratings of lawmakers.
“This kick-the-can approach, necessitated by a president who refuses to stop campaigning and start seriously addressing our nation’s fiscal problems, is not an adequate solution to America’s coming fiscal crisis, which is a result of overspending, not under-taxing,” the group said in a written statement.
—Patrick O’Connor and Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article.
Write to Janet Hook at email@example.com and Carol E. Lee at firstname.lastname@example.org