American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Last updated
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn act to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform, and for other purposes.
Acronyms (colloquial)ATRA
Enacted bythe 112th United States Congress
EffectiveJanuary 1, 2013
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  112–240 (text) (PDF)
Statutes at Large 126  Stat.   2313
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as the "Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012" (H.R. 8) by Dave Camp (RMI) on July 24, 2012
  • Committee consideration by Ways and Means
  • Passed the House on August 1, 2012 (256–171)
  • Passed the Senate as the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012" on January 1, 2013 (89–8) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on January 1, 2013 (257–167)
  • Signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 2, 2013

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) was enacted and passed by the United States Congress on January 1, 2013, and was signed into law by US President Barack Obama the next day. ATRA gave permanence to the lower rates of much of the "Bush tax cuts". [1]

Contents

The Act centers on a partial resolution to the US fiscal cliff by addressing the expiration of certain provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (known together as the "Bush tax cuts"), which had been temporarily extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The Act also addressed the activation of the Budget Control Act of 2011's budget sequestration provisions.

A compromise measure, the Act gives permanence to the lower rate of much of the Bush tax cuts, while retaining the higher tax rate at upper income levels that became effective on January 1 due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. It also establishes caps on tax deductions and credits for those at upper income levels. It does not tackle federal spending levels to a great extent, rather leaving that for further negotiations and legislation. The American Taxpayer Relief Act passed by a wide majority in the Senate, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting it, while most of the House Republicans opposed it.

Provisions

Tax provisions

In all, the bill included $600 billion over ten years in new tax revenue, about one-fifth of the revenue that would have been raised had no legislation been passed. For the tax year 2013, some taxpayers experienced the first year-to-year income-tax rate increase since 1993, although the rate increase came about not as a result of the 2012 Act, but as a result of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The new rates for income, capital gains, estates, and the alternative minimum tax would be made permanent. [3] [5]

Spending provisions

Legislative history

Senate vote by state
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}
2 Democratic YesesYY
1 Democratic YesY and 1 Republican YesY
2 Republican YesesYY
1 Democratic YesY and 1 Republican not voting*
1 Democratic YesY and 1 Democratic not voting*
1 Republican YesY and 1 Republican not voting*
1 Democratic YesY and 1 Democratic NoN
1 Democratic YesY and 1 Republican NoN
1 Republican YesY and 1 Republican NoN
1 Democratic NoN and 1 Republican NoN 112th United States Congress 2nd Session Senate Vote 251.svg
Senate vote by state
  2 Democratic YesesGreen check.svgYGreen check.svgY
  1 Democratic YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Republican YesGreen check.svgY
  2 Republican YesesGreen check.svgYGreen check.svgY

  1 Democratic YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Republican not votingAmbox important.svg*
  1 Democratic YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Democratic not votingAmbox important.svg*
  1 Republican YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Republican not votingAmbox important.svg*

  1 Democratic YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Democratic NoRed x.svgN
  1 Democratic YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Republican NoRed x.svgN
  1 Republican YesGreen check.svgY and 1 Republican NoRed x.svgN

  1 Democratic NoRed x.svgN and 1 Republican NoRed x.svgN
House vote by district
Democratic YesY
Republican YesY
Democratic NoN
Republican NoN
Not voting*
Vacant 112th United States Congress 2nd Session House Vote 659.svg
House vote by district
  Democratic YesGreen check.svgY
  Republican YesGreen check.svgY

  Democratic NoRed x.svgN
  Republican NoRed x.svgN

  Not votingAmbox important.svg*
  Vacant

The passage of the bill came after days of negotiations between Senate leaders and the Obama administration, with the final agreement being attributed to talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. [13] [14] Some Democrats criticized the bill for not raising taxes on the wealthy more, while Republicans criticized it for raising tax rates while not providing explicit spending cuts. [3] [5] The final actions on the bill came during Congressional sessions on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

At around 2 a.m. EST on January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the bill, by a margin of 89–8. [5] 49 Democrats (and Democratic-caucusing Independents) and 40 Republicans voted in favor while 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against. [13]

The prospect was raised that the House would pass an amended bill that included $300 billion in spending cuts. [13] But it was determined to be unlikely that the Senate would vote on any amended legislation before the end of the 112th Congress at noon on January 3, 2013 (all legislation under consideration expires at the end of each Congress), and failure to pass a bill and thus prolong the time over the cliff was seen as politically disadvantageous by the Republican leadership, and so the House moved towards a vote the same day. [15]

The House passed the bill without amendments by a margin of 257–167 at about 11 p. m. EST on January 1, 2013. [16] 85 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted in favor while 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats were opposed. [17] [18]

Speaker of the House John Boehner voted for the bill, a break from the usual custom of the speaker not voting at all. The action by the House in bringing the bill up was itself a break from the normal "Hastert rule" as well, in that a majority of the majority Republican caucus did not support it. [14]

The House's passage brought to a close what the Associated Press called "Congress' excruciating, extraordinary New Year's Day approval of a compromise averting a prolonged tumble off the fiscal cliff." Minutes later, the president flew back to Hawaii to rejoin his family for their holiday vacation. [14] Obama signed the official copy of the bill by autopen from there late on January 2, 2013. [19]

CBO scoring

Budget deficits, projected through 2022. The "CBO Baseline" (in red) assumed significant deficit reduction due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and implementation of spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The "Alternative Scenario" (in blue) did not. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 deficit path is slightly below the Alternative scenario. Deficit or Surplus with Alternative Fiscal Scenario.png
Budget deficits, projected through 2022. The "CBO Baseline" (in red) assumed significant deficit reduction due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and implementation of spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The "Alternative Scenario" (in blue) did not. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 deficit path is slightly below the Alternative scenario.
Three CBO deficit scenarios related to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) and the Fiscal Cliff. The blue line (August 2012 baseline) was the "current law" baseline, with tax increases and spending cuts that would take effect if laws were not changed. The grey line (March 2012 alternative baseline) was the "current policy" baseline, which represented the avoidance of the tax increases and spending cuts. The orange line (February 2013 baseline) was the post-ATRA result. ATRA Deficit Scenarios - v1.png
Three CBO deficit scenarios related to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) and the Fiscal Cliff. The blue line (August 2012 baseline) was the "current law" baseline, with tax increases and spending cuts that would take effect if laws were not changed. The grey line (March 2012 alternative baseline) was the "current policy" baseline, which represented the avoidance of the tax increases and spending cuts. The orange line (February 2013 baseline) was the post-ATRA result.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzes the effects of legislation on the deficit and economy. Describing the effects of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) depends on which baseline is used in comparison.

Ten-year projections 2013–2022

The CBO reported its estimates of the budgetary effects of ATRA on January 1, 2013. These effects were measured relative to the CBO's March 2012 "Baseline scenario", which assumed significant deficit reduction due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and implementation of spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

CBO's March 2012 "Baseline scenario" assumed the total deficits for the 2013–2022 period would be $2,887 billion. Debt held by the public (a partial measure of the national debt) at the end of 2022 would be $15,115 billion, resulting in a ratio of debt held by the public to GDP of 61.3%. The ratio was projected to be 73.2% in 2012. [23] Applying the amounts in the ATRA to the baseline (a rough approximation pending further CBO scoring), passage of the ATRA raises the:

For comparison, the CBO's "Alternative Scenario", which assumed the Bush tax cuts would be extended and the spending cuts in the Budget Control Act avoided, assumed $10,731 billion in cumulative deficits during the 2013–2022 period. [23] The ATRA results in $6,858 billion in cumulative deficits, roughly splitting the difference between the two scenarios. In other words, ATRA improves the deficit picture relative to the Alternative scenario, but worsens it relative to the Baseline scenario.

CBO separately indicated in January 2013 that $600 billion in additional interest costs over the 2013–2022 period were not included in their initial assessment discussed above. This increases the deficit estimate from $6,858 billion (Baseline scenario with ATRA adjustment above) to $7,458 billion. This additional interest cost arises due to higher deficits relative to the Baseline. While ATRA would reduce short-term economic impact due to the cliff, it would slow long-term growth relative to the lower deficit Baseline scenario. [21]

2012 to 2013 changes

The CBO's August 2012 "Baseline scenario" assumed revenue would increase from $2,435 billion in 2012 to $2,913 billion in 2013, an increase of $478 billion or 19.63%. It also assumed spending would decline from $3,563 billion in 2012 to $3,554 billion in 2013, a decrease of $9 billion or -0.25%. The deficit was projected to be $641 billion in 2013, significantly below the 2012 deficit of $1,128 billion. [24]

The CBO's January 1, 2013 analysis of ATRA included adjustments to the Baseline scenario for 2013 of -$280 billion in revenues and +$50 billion in spending. This lowers the 2013 Baseline revenue projection from $2,913 to $2,633 billion, an increase of $198 billion or 8.13% versus 2012 revenues of $2,435 billion, while raising the 2013 spending from $3,554 billion to $3,604 billion, an increase of $41 billion or 1.15% versus 2012 spending of $3,563 billion. After adjusting for these changes, the deficit was projected to be $971 billion in 2013 instead of the $641 billion projected prior to ATRA, an increase of $330 billion. Both deficit projections were below the 2012 deficit of $1,128 billion by $157 billion and $487 billion, respectively. [22]

Analysis and reaction

The Wall Street Journal reported that the bill's tax provisions "represented the largest tax increase in the past two decades", based on the year-to-year increase in tax rates from 2012 to 2013. [5] However, Dave Camp, the Republican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, called the same provisions the "largest tax cut in American history", referring to the fact that the bill's tax rates replace much higher rates for 2013 that were provided for in the laws previously in effect. [25]

In a news analysis piece, The New York Times wrote that "Just a few years ago, the tax deal pushed through Congress ... would have been a Republican fiscal fantasy, a sweeping bill that locks in virtually all of the Bush-era tax cuts, exempts almost all estates from taxation, and enshrines the former president's credo that dividends and capital gains should be taxed equally and gently. But times have changed, President George W. Bush is gone, and before the bill's final passage ... House Republican leaders struggled all day to quell a revolt among caucus members who threatened to blow up a hard-fought compromise that they could have easily framed as a victory." [26]

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said that the bill avoided most of the economic harm from the fiscal cliff and set useful precedents regarding paying for the sequester and doc fix but failed to include any serious entitlement reforms, enact serious spending cuts, or stabilize the debt as a share of the economy. [27] The president of The Peter G. Peterson Foundation said the fiscal cliff agreement "was a significant missed opportunity to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path." [28] The Washington Post's editorial board said "the bill's enactment is far better than a failure by this Congress to act before it adjourns" but complained that "lawmakers seem to have gotten as close as they could to doing the bare minimum." [29]

Economist Paul Krugman wrote that ATRA allowed liberals to avoid spending cuts or entitlement reform, while conservatives allowed income tax rate increases for the first time since 1993. Krugman believed that Obama should have bargained harder for more revenue. He also estimated that another 2% GDP in annual deficit reduction would be required over the long run to stabilize the debt situation. [30] [31]

Related Research Articles

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade. According to supply-side economics theory, consumers will benefit from greater supply of goods and services at lower prices, and employment will increase. Supply-side fiscal policies are designed to increase aggregate supply, as opposed to aggregate demand, thereby expanding output and employment while lowering prices. Such policies are of several general varieties:

  1. Investments in human capital, such as education, healthcare, and encouraging the transfer of technologies and business processes, to improve productivity. Encouraging globalized free trade via containerization is a major recent example.
  2. Tax reduction, to provide incentives to work, invest and take risks. Lowering income tax rates and eliminating or lowering tariffs are examples of such policies.
  3. Investments in new capital equipment and research and development (R&D), to further improve productivity. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital equipment more rapidly gives them an immediate financial incentive to invest in such equipment.
  4. Reduction in government regulations, to encourage business formation and expansion.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">National debt of the United States</span> Worlds largest national debt

The national debt of the United States is the total national debt owed by the federal government of the United States to Treasury security holders. The national debt at any point in time is the face value of the then-outstanding Treasury securities that have been issued by the Treasury and other federal agencies. The terms "national deficit" and "national surplus" usually refer to the federal government budget balance from year to year, not the cumulative amount of debt. In a deficit year the national debt increases as the government needs to borrow funds to finance the deficit, while in a surplus year the debt decreases as more money is received than spent, enabling the government to reduce the debt by buying back some Treasury securities. In general, government debt increases as a result of government spending and decreases from tax or other receipts, both of which fluctuate during the course of a fiscal year. There are two components of gross national debt:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993</span>

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was a federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993. It has also been unofficially referred to as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII of the law is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

The economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of president of the United States Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001.

PAYGO is the practice in the United States of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal budget</span> Budget of the U.S. federal government

The United States budget comprises the spending and revenues of the U.S. federal government. The budget is the financial representation of the priorities of the government, reflecting historical debates and competing economic philosophies. The government primarily spends on healthcare, retirement, and defense programs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides extensive analysis of the budget and its economic effects. CBO estimated in February 2024 that Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 99 percent of GDP in 2024 to 116 percent in 2034 and would continue to grow if current laws generally remained unchanged. Over that period, the growth of interest costs and mandatory spending outpaces the growth of revenues and the economy, driving up debt. Those factors persist beyond 2034, pushing federal debt higher still, to 172 percent of GDP in 2054.

In American political theory, fiscal conservatism or economic conservatism is a political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility with an ideological basis in capitalism, individualism, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the United States public debt</span>

The history of the United States public debt began with federal government debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War by the first U.S treasurer, Michael Hillegas, after the country's formation in 1776. The United States has continuously experienced fluctuating public debt, except for about a year during 1835–1836. To facilitate comparisons over time, public debt is often expressed as a ratio to gross domestic product (GDP). Historically, the United States public debt as a share of GDP has increased during wars and recessions, and subsequently declined.

The economic policy and legacy of the George W. Bush administration was characterized by significant income tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the implementation of Medicare Part D in 2003, increased military spending for two wars, a housing bubble that contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–2008, and the Great Recession that followed. Economic performance during the period was adversely affected by two recessions, in 2001 and 2007–2009.

The phrase Bush tax cuts refers to changes to the United States tax code passed originally during the presidency of George W. Bush and extended during the presidency of Barack Obama, through:

Baseline budgeting is an accounting method the United States Federal Government uses to develop a budget for future years. Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the "baseline" for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate. Twice a year—generally in January and August—CBO prepares baseline projections of federal revenues, outlays, and the surplus or deficit. Those projections are designed to show what would happen if current budgetary policies were continued as is—that is, they serve as a benchmark for assessing possible changes in policy. They are not forecasts of actual budget outcomes, since the Congress will undoubtedly enact legislation that will change revenues and outlays. Similarly, they are not intended to represent the appropriate or desirable levels of federal taxes and spending.

The economic policy of the Barack Obama administration, or in its colloquial portmanteau form "Obamanomics", was characterized by moderate tax increases on higher income Americans designed to fund health care reform, reduce the federal budget deficit, and decrease income inequality. President Obama's first term (2009–2013) included measures designed to address the Great Recession and subprime mortgage crisis, which began in 2007. These included a major stimulus package, banking regulation, and comprehensive healthcare reform. As the economy improved and job creation continued during his second term (2013–2017), the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire for the highest income taxpayers and a spending sequester (cap) was implemented, to further reduce the deficit back to typical historical levels. The number of persons without health insurance was reduced by 20 million, reaching a record low level as a percent of the population. By the end of his second term, the number of persons with jobs, real median household income, stock market, and real household net worth were all at record levels, while the unemployment rate was well below historical average.

The 2011 United States federal budget was the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011. The budget was the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama. The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the U.S. budget process.

The 2013 United States federal budget is the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2013, which began on October 1, 2012, and ended on September 30, 2013. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2012.

Political debates about the United States federal budget discusses some of the more significant U.S. budgetary debates of the 21st century. These include the causes of debt increases, the impact of tax cuts, specific events such as the United States fiscal cliff, the effectiveness of stimulus, and the impact of the Great Recession, among others. The article explains how to analyze the U.S. budget as well as the competing economic schools of thought that support the budgetary positions of the major parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deficit reduction in the United States</span> Economic policy debate

Deficit reduction in the United States refers to taxation, spending, and economic policy debates and proposals designed to reduce the federal government budget deficit. Government agencies including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Treasury Department have reported that the federal government is facing a series of important long-run financing challenges, mainly driven by an aging population, rising healthcare costs per person, and rising interest payments on the national debt.

The United States fiscal cliff refers to the combined effect of several previously-enacted laws that came into effect simultaneously in January 2013, increasing taxes and decreasing spending.

Budget sequestration is a provision of United States law that causes an across-the-board reduction in certain kinds of spending included in the federal budget. Sequestration involves setting a hard cap on the amount of government spending within broadly defined categories; if Congress enacts annual appropriations legislation that exceeds these caps, an across-the-board spending cut is automatically imposed on these categories, affecting all departments and programs by an equal percentage. The amount exceeding the budget limit is held back by the Treasury and not transferred to the agencies specified in the appropriation bills. The word sequestration was derived from a legal term referring to the seizing of property by an agent of the court, to prevent destruction or harm, while any dispute over said property is resolved in court.

As a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, a set of automatic spending cuts to United States federal government spending in particular of outlays were initially set to begin on January 1, 2013. They were postponed by two months by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.

The economic policy of the Donald Trump administration was characterized by the individual and corporate tax cuts, attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), trade protectionism, immigration restriction, deregulation focused on the energy and financial sectors, and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

  1. "H.R.8 - American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012". congress.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
  2. Kreutzer, Matthew J. (January 9, 2013). "The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 ('ATRA') – Saved From The 'Fiscal Cliff'". The National Law Review .
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Weisman, Jonathan (January 1, 2013). "Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise". The New York Times .
  4. 1 2 3 Khimm, Suzy (December 31, 2012). "Your fiscal cliff deal cheat sheet". The Washington Post .
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hook, Janet; Hughes, Siobhan (January 1, 2013). "Fiscal-Cliff Focus Moves to House". The Wall Street Journal .
  6. Eggen, Dan (December 23, 2010). "'Active financing' exemption for some businesses to cost taxpayers $9 billion". The Washington Post .
  7. "BakerHostetler | News / Resources | New Markets Tax Credit Program Extended for Two Years by American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012". Archived from the original on 2013-11-29. Retrieved 2013-03-25.
  8. Plumer, Brad (January 2, 2013). "From NASCAR to rum, the 10 weirdest parts of the 'fiscal cliff' deal". The Washington Post .
  9. "Other nuggets in the fiscal cliff bill: Rum, electric vehicles and motor sports". CNN. January 1, 2013. Archived from the original on January 3, 2013.
  10. Mervis, Jeffrey (January 2, 2013). "Fiscal Cliff Deal Delays Major Budget Cuts, but Includes Reductions That Could Affect Science". ScienceInsider . American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on January 5, 2013. Retrieved January 3, 2013.
  11. 1 2 Friedman, Joel; Kogan, Richard; Parrott, Sharon (18 September 2013). "Clearing Up Misunderstandings: Sequestration Would Not Be Tougher on Defense Than Non-Defense Programs in 2014". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  12. Nixon, Ron (January 1, 2013). "Tax Bill Passed by Senate Includes Farm Bill Extension". The New York Times .
  13. 1 2 3 Demirjian, Karoun (January 1, 2013). "It's over: House passes 'fiscal cliff' deal". Las Vegas Sun .
  14. 1 2 3 Fram, Alan (January 2, 2013). "Congress' OK of fiscal cliff deal gives Obama a win, prevents GOP blame for tax boosts". Star Tribune . Minneapolis. Associated Press. Archived from the original on January 5, 2013.
  15. "House Republicans drop plans to amend Senate cliff deal". CNN. January 1, 2013. Archived from the original on January 4, 2013.
  16. Steinhauer, Jennifer; Weisman, Jonathan (January 1, 2013). "House Nears Vote on Senate Deal, Despite Objections". The New York Times .
  17. "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 659". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives . Retrieved January 1, 2013.
  18. Ferrechio, Susan (January 1, 2013). "House moves to avoid tumble over fiscal cliff". The Washington Examiner .
  19. "Obama signs 'fiscal cliff' bill into law". CBS News . Associated Press. January 3, 2013.
  20. "CBO Budget Projections" . Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  21. 1 2 "The Fiscal Cliff Deal". Congressional Budget Office. January 4, 2013. Retrieved January 4, 2013.
  22. 1 2 "H.R. 8, American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012". Congressional Budget Office. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
  23. 1 2 "Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022". Congressional Budget Office. March 13, 2012. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
  24. "An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022". Congressional Budget Office. August 22, 2012. Retrieved January 3, 2013.
  25. Montgomery, Lori (January 1, 2013). "Congress approves 'fiscal cliff' measure". The Washington Post .
  26. Weisman, Jonathan (January 2, 2013). "Lines of Resistance on Fiscal Deal". The New York Times . p. 1.
  27. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the Fiscal Cliff Package". Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
  28. "Statement from Foundation President & COO, Michael A. Peterson, on Fiscal Cliff Agreement". The Peter G. Peterson Foundation. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
  29. Editorial Board (January 1, 2013). "The Post's View: Congress's feeble finish to the 'fiscal cliff' fiasco". The Washington Post .
  30. Krugman, Paul (January 1, 2013). "Perspective on the Deal". The New York Times .
  31. Krugman, Paul (January 2, 2013). "That Bad Ceiling Feeling". The New York Times .

Further reading