Why Both Sides Might Want to Go Off the Fiscal Cliff

The so-called "fiscal cliff" has dominated the news ever since the election ended, but it has hung over heads as a threat to the economy for much longer. In terms of public perception, the president is winning both the traditional and social media battles.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) points to a chart during a press briefing on Capitol Hill 13, 2012 in Washington, DC. Boehner spoke about House Republicans efforts to address the pending fiscal cliff. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) points to a chart during a press briefing on Capitol Hill 13, 2012 in Washington, DC. Boehner spoke about House Republicans efforts to address the pending fiscal cliff. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

The so-called "fiscal cliff" has dominated the news ever since the election ended, but it has hung over heads as a threat to the economy for much longer. The "cliff" is a combination of tax increases (created by not extending tax cuts that currently exist) and several deep spending cuts (passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year). The tax increases will be over $500 billion and the cuts in spending will be in the billions and will potentially affect every area of government. Most economists on the left and right believe they could be a cause of economic ruin, but both the president and Speaker Boehner, oddly, have their own reasons why they might like to see it happen.

During the debates, the president told the audience flatly that the "fiscal cliff would not happen." In the last few weeks, he has begun playing a bold game of chicken and has made it clear he is ready to jump. Meanwhile, House Speaker Boehner has consistently said such a thing cannot happen. He has offered several counter proposals, including one endorsed by moderate Democrat Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and best known recently as the co-chair (with former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)) of Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was formed to provide a serious attack against the problem of government spending. That proposal by Boehner -- as well as all the others -- was rejected by President Obama. Obama is committed to making sure the most affluent have a tax increase and seems willing to do it regardless of the consequences.

So Obama has shown his willingness to face the cliff, but why would Boehner want to do it? It is certainly contrarian for the GOP to acquiesce on such tax increases, but one of the biggest complaints Republicans have had in recent years and particularly in the last election is the huge number of voters who do not pay federal taxes directly (although they certainly do in the costs of goods and services they buy from companies that pay taxes). If the problem is a lack of "skin in the game" by many voters, what better way of accomplishing that than tax increases that not only will affect the most affluent, but even the middle class? With the fiscal cliff, individuals making as little as $33,000 and couples making around $50,000 could find themselves subject to the Annual Minimum Tax, which has only been for the most affluent in recent years. Sure, this increase would also be on the wealthy and could, as Republicans have argued, have a negative impact on job creation and could lead to an exodus of revenue from the country; but it would also get the attention of all voters when it comes to taxes and might translate into electoral success.

The problem with this is the role of public perception. The president is winning both the traditional and social media battles. The GOP almost seems decades behind in its deployment of Facebook, Twitter and other social media (I know such isn't possible, but it seems that way). The jury is out on the impact of social media when it comes to changing the debate, but organizations of all sizes are investing substantially in such efforts. The president himself has his own hash tag specifically for the Fiscal cliff debate with #My2k. You can use that one too or #fiscalcliff in your Twitter conversations.

Kevin Price is Publisher and Editor in Chief of US Daily Review and Host of the Price of Business on 1110 AM KTEK in Houston, Texas. He is the author of Empowerment to the People and has twice received the George Washington Honor Medal in Communications from the Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge. His column is nationally syndicated and he is a frequent guest on major media around the country, being found on Fox News, Fox Business, and other networks. For more see at http://KevinPriceCentral.com.

This post is part of a series co-produced by The Huffington Post and Blogworld, in conjunction with the latter's NMX BusinessNext Social 2013. That event will feature some of the world's leading social-business luminaries and influencers, each of whom will be speaking at the event to provide an up-close look at how the world's most successful businesses harness the power of social.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot